1 Thüsing's, WilhelmDie Erhöhung und Verherrlichung Jesu im Johannesevangelium (NTA 21; Münster: Aschendorff, 1960)Google Scholar.

2 Chibici-Revneanu, N., Die Herrlichkeit des Verherrlichten. Das Verständnis der δόξα im Johannesevangelium (WUNT 2/231; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007)Google Scholar.

3 Schwindt, R., Gesichte der Herrlichkeit. Eine exegetisch-traditionsgeschichtliche Studie zur paulinischen und johanneischen Christologie (HBS 50; Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2007)Google Scholar.

4 Frey, J., ‘“…dass sie meine Herrlichkeit schauen” (Joh 17.24). Zu Hintergrund, Sinn und Funktion der johanneischen Rede von der δόξα Jesu’, NTS 54 (2008) 375–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 This is also to be said about the treatment in Nielsen, J. T., Die kognitive Dimension des Kreuzes. Zur Deutung des Todes Jesu im Johannesevangelium (WUNT 2/263; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 90–111Google Scholar.

6 Significantly, Chibici-Revneanu uses a range of expressions to describe the Johannine δόξα/δοξάζϵιν (e.g. Exodus- δόξα, Königs- δόξα, Tempel- δόξα, kultische δόξα, eschatologische δόξα, Gerichts- δόξα, lichthafte δόξα), but concludes that the translations ‘Herrlichkeit’ and ‘Verherrlichung’ best cover the Johannine use of δόξα/δοξάζϵιν. Chibici-Revneanu, Herrlichkeit, 640.

7 Frey, ‘Herrlichkeit’, 396.

8 Cf. Frey, ‘Herrlichkeit’, 390.

9 Frey, ‘Herrlichkeit’, 382. Frey used to refer to this technique as ‘hermeneutische Horizontverschmelzung’. Cf. Frey, J., Die johanneische Eschatologie II. Das johanneische Zeitverständnis (WUNT 110; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998) 247–83Google Scholar.

10 Cf. Frey, ‘Herrlichkeit’, 395–6.

11 Cf. Chibici-Revneanu, Herrlichkeit, 335–510; Schwindt, Gesichte, 13–105; Newman, C. C., Paul's Glory-Christology: Tradition and Rhetoric (NTS 69; Leiden/New York: Brill, 1992) 17–153Google Scholar. Older scholarship mainly consists of articles in dictionaries and encyclopaedias but a few linguistic investigations should be mentioned. von Gall, A. F., Die Herrlichkeit Gottes. Eine biblisch-theologische Untersuchung ausgedehnt über das Alte Testament, die Targume, Apokryphen, Apokalypsen und das Neue Testament (Giessen: J. Ricker, 1900)Google Scholar; Caspari, W., Die Bedeutungen der Wortsippe kbd im Heräischen (Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1908)Google Scholar; Schneider, J., Doxa. Eine bedeutungsgeschichtliche Studie (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1932)Google Scholar; Kittel, H., Die Herrlichkeit Gottes. Studien zu Geschichte und Wesen eines Neutestamentlichen Begriffs (BZNW 16; Giessen: A. Töpelmann, 1934)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Among the recent publications it is agreed that the immediate influence comes from the LXX-version of Isaiah. Schwindt, Gesichte, 322; Chibici-Revneanu, Herrlichkeit, 495–6; Frey, ‘Herrlichkeit’, 383. Even though LXX Isaiah may be the direct inspiration for the Fourth Gospel's use of δόξα/δοξάζϵιν there is much more involved in the Johannine concept than can be derived from Isaiah or any other specific source.

13 Cf. Nielsen, Die kognitive Dimension des Kreuzes, 90–111. This approach differs from the newest contributions. R. Schwindt investigates the history of tradition concerning glory in the Hebrew Bible and its reception. His main interest is the possible development of an idea of a human or divine medium for the divine glory. Schwindt, Gesichte, 13–105. N. Chibici-Revneanu defines the contemporary understanding of glory in a variety of different concepts and places the various Johannine uses of the term in relation to these specific semantic domains. Chibici-Revneanu, Herrlichkeit, 335–519.

14 Cf. C. Dohmen and P. Stenmans, ‘כבד’, ThWAT 4.13–22 (14–17); Schwindt, Gesichte, 13–14.

15 Cf. Malina, B. J., The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2d rev. ed. 1993), 28–50Google Scholar.

16 The conjugation niphal carries a reflexive or passive meaning. Gesenius, W. and Kautzsch, E., Hebräische Grammatik (Hildesheim: Georg Olm, 1962) § 51,2Google Scholar.

17 From a literary perspective this idea belongs to the priestly layer. Westermann, C., ‘Die Herrlichkeit Gottes in der Priesterschrift’, Forschung am Alten Testament. Gesammelte Studien II (Munich: Kaiser, 1974) 115–37Google Scholar; Struppe, U., Die Herrlichkeit Jahwes in der Priesterschrift. Eine semantische Studie zu k^ebôd YHWH (ÖBS 9; Klosterneuburg: Österreichisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988)Google Scholar; Janowski, B., Sühne als Heilsgeschehen. Traditions- und religionsgeschichtliche Studien zur priesterschriftlichen Sühnetheologie (WMANT 55; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner, 2d rev. ed. 2000), 303–38Google Scholar.

18 LSJ, 444; cf. Chibici-Revneanu, Herrlichkeit, 336–53.

19 Cf. von Gall, Herrlichkeit, 23–4; Caspari, Bedeutungen, 80–6; Schneider, Doxa, 69–70; Kittel, Herrlichkeit, 63; Newman, Glory-Christology, 147.

20 Cf. Chibici-Revneanu, Herrlichkeit, 345–8.

21 On Aristotle's Poetics see the commentaries, e.g., Else, G. F., Aristotle's Poetics: The Argument (Leiden: Brill, 1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lucas, D. W., Aristotle Poetics: Introduction, Commentary, and Appendixes (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968)Google Scholar; Halliwell, S., The Poetics of Aristotle: Translation and Commentary (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1985)Google Scholar; and the collection of essays Rorty, A. O., ed., Essays on Aristotle's Poetics (Oxford: Princeton University, 1992)Google Scholar.

22 On the concept ἀναγνώρισις, see Else, Poetics 349–55.383–5; Halliwell, Poetics 202–37; Cave, T., Recognitions: A Study in Poetics (Oxford: Clarendon, 1988) 28–46Google Scholar.

23 After an interpretation of the Aristotelian concepts πάθος and ἀναγνώρισις J. Vahlen concludes that ‘die Erkennung, ganz so wie das πάθος, als ein einzelnes Moment in dem Gange der Handlung betrachtet wird, das nicht bloß an dem Knotenpunkte der μετάβασις, sondern auch, wie z. B. in den Choëphoren, an andern Stellen und an mehrern zugleich eintreten kann…’ Vahlen, J., Beiträge zu Aristoteles' Poetik (Berlin: Teubner, 1914) 57Google Scholar.

24 So the terminologically imprecise but narratologically important semiotic interpretation of the Aristotelian concept ἀναγνώρισις by A.-J. Greimas and Courtès, J., ‘The Cognitive Dimension of Narrative Discourse’, New Literary History 7 (1976) 433–47Google Scholar.

25 The two levels do not correspond to the Aristotelian distinction between simple (ἁπλοῦς) and complex (πϵπλϵγμνος) plots as A.-J. Greimas and J. Courtès seem to think. Greimas and Courtés, ‘Dimension’, 339.

26 Cf. Greimas, A.-J. and Courtés, J., Sémiotique. Dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage (Paris: Hachette Supérieur, 1993)Google Scholar, ‘Cognitif’.

27 Extensively by Larsen, K. B., Recognizing the Stranger: Recognition Scenes in the Gospel of John (Biblical Interpretation Series 93; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; but see also the works of Culpepper, R. A., ‘The Plot of John's Story of Jesus’, Int 49 (1995) 347–58Google Scholar; Culpepper, , The Gospel and Letters of John (IBT; Nashville: Abingdon, 1998) 72–86Google Scholar. On the use of Aristotle in Johannine studies, cf. Nielsen, J. T., ‘Resurrection, Recognition, Reassuring: The Function of Jesus' Resurrection in the Fourth Gospel’, The Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John (ed. Koester, C. R. and Bieringer, R.; WUNT 222; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 177–208Google Scholar.

28 Most often the gospel structure has been defined according to other criteria. Traditionally, the character of Jesus' activity lays the ground for dividing the narrative into two halves with a turning point between chs. 12 and 13, e.g., ‘Die Offenbarung der δόξα vor der Welt’ and ‘Die Offenbarung der δόξα vor der Gemeinde’, Bultmann, R., Das Evangelium des Johannes (KEK 2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1941)Google Scholar; ‘The Book of Signs’ and ‘The Book of Passion’, Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1953)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘The Book of Signs’ and ‘The Book of Glory’, Brown, R., The Gospel according to John (AB 29; New York: Doubleday, 1966)Google Scholar. Other scholars use other criteria and suggest other structures, cf. the survey of 24 different proposals in Mlakuzhyil, G., The Christocentric Literary Structure of the Fourth Gospel (AnBib 117; Rome: Editrice pontificio istitutio biblico, 1987) 17–85Google Scholar. All these approaches differ from the present one by finding the structuring criteria on the surface of the gospel text (e.g. geographical, chronological, numerical, or liturgical). The Aristotelian structure organizes the story into a whole and complete narrative and is not necessarily reflected in, say, the geographical or chronological structure of the gospel. Contrariwise, neither the change in Jesus' activity nor any of the other proposed criteria constitute the coherence of the Johannine narrative.

29 On the prominent sending theme in the Fourth Gospel, see, e.g., Borgen, P., ‘God's Agent in the Fourth Gospel’, Religions in Antiquity (ed. Neusner, J.; Leiden: Brill 1968) 137–48Google Scholar; Bühner, J. A., Der Gesandte und sein Weg im 4. Evangelium (WUNT 2/2; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1977)Google Scholar; Haenchen, E., ‘“Der Vater der mich gesandt hat”’, NTS 9 (1962–63) 208–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miranda, J. P., Die Sendung Jesu im vierten Evangelium. Religions- und theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den Sendungsformeln (SBS 87; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1977)Google Scholar; Schnackenburg, R., ‘“Der Vater, der mich gesandt hat.” Zur johanneischen Christologie’, Anfänge der Christologie. FS F. Hahn (ed. Breytenbach, C. and Paulsen, H.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991) 275–91Google Scholar.

30 Cf. the so called ‘Präponderenz des göttlichen Heilswillen’. Blank, J., Krisis. Untersuchungen zur johanneischen Christologie und Eschatologie (Freiburg i.B.: Lambertus, 1964) 88Google Scholar. J. Blank coined this concept in opposition to R. Bultmann's idea that Jesus' coming and going is the krisis of the world in the Fourth Gospel. Bultmann, R., Das Evangelium des Johannes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1941) 111–13Google Scholar; Bultmann, , Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 9th ed. 1984) 390–1Google Scholar.

31 In M. W. G. Stibbe's application of A.-J. Greimas's actantial model on the Fourth Gospel this is not entirely clear because he does not distinguish between the pragmatic and cognitive level. Stibbe, M. W. G., ‘“Return to Sender”: A Structuralist Approach to John's Gospel’, The Interpretation of John (ed. Ashton, J.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997) 261–78Google Scholar; cf. Stibbe, , John's Gospel (London/New York: Routledge 1994) 32–53Google Scholar.

32 Cf. Culpepper, R. A., Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 88Google Scholar; Bühler, P., ‘Ist Johannes ein Kreuzestheologe? Exegetisch-systematischer Bemerkungen zu einer noch offenen Debatte’, Johannes-Studien. Interdisziplinäre Zugänge zum Johannes-Evangelium. FS J. Zumstein (ed. Rose, M.; Neuchâtel: Secrétariat de l'Université, 1990) 191–207Google Scholar (esp. 197–202).

33 It is often claimed that Mary Magdalene has an extraordinarily intimate relation to Jesus because she meets him in a very delicate situation after his resurrection but before his ascension, e.g., D'Angelo, M. R., ‘A Critical Note: John 20.17 and the Apocalypse of Moses 31’, JThS 41 (1990) 529–36Google Scholar. But this interpretation overlooks that she in fact misunderstands him and is rejected by him. Cf. Theobald, M., ‘Der johanneische Osterglaube und die Grenzen seiner narrativen Vermittlung (Joh 20)’, Von Jesus zum Christus. Christologische Studien, FS P. Hoffmann (ed. Hoppe, R. and Busse, U.; BZNW 93; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1998) 93–123Google Scholar (esp. 110–11).

34 On the function of the Beloved Disciple as an ideal for the Johannine Community, see Theobald, M., ‘Der Jünger, den Jesus liebte. Beobachtungen zum narrativen Konzept der johanneischen Redaktion’, Geschichte—Tradition—Reflexion, FS M. Hengel, Bd. III. Frühes Christentum (ed. Cancik, H., Lichtenberger, H., and Schäfer, P.; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996) 219–55Google Scholar (esp. 242–7). This understanding of the Beloved Disciple stands even without M. Theobald's literary theory.

35 Cf., e.g., Haenchen, ‘Der Vater, der mich gesandt hat’, 212–13; Theobald, ‘Der johanneische Osterglaube’, 118; Dietzfelbinger, C., Abschied des Kommenden. Eine Auslegung der johanneischen Abschiedsreden (WUNT 95; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1997) 85Google Scholar; Welck, C., Erzählte Zeichen. Die Wundergeschichten des Johannesevangeliums literarisch untersucht. Mit einem Ausblick auf Joh 21 (WUNT 2/69; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1994), 124–5, 127Google Scholar.

36 The genre-oriented approach to ἀναγνώρισις in the Fourth Gospel seems not to capture this aspect; see, e.g., Larsen, Recognizing the Stranger. It may be another instance of Johannine ‘genre bending’, cf. Attridge, H. W., ‘Genre Bending in the Fourth Gospel’, JBL 121 (2002) 3–21Google Scholar.

37 That Thomas's confession is the culminating ἀναγνώρισις in the narrative is also recognized by Culpepper, ‘The Plot of John's Story of Jesus’, 356; Culpepper, Gospel, 85; Stibbe, Gospel, 36, cf. van der Watt, J. G., ‘The Cross/Resurrection-Events in the Gospel of John with Special Emphasis on the Confession of Thomas (20.28)’, Neot. 37 (2003) 127–45Google Scholar; Koester, C. R., ‘The Death of Jesus and the Human Condition: Exploring the Theology of John's Gospel’, Life in Abundance: Studies of John's Gospel in Tribute to Raymond E. Brown (ed. Donahue, John R.; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2005) 141–57Google Scholar; cf. Koester, , ‘Why Was the Messiah Crucified? A Study of God, Jesus, Satan, and Human Agency in Johannine Theology’, The Death of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (ed. van Belle, G.; BEThL 200; Leuven: Leuven University, 2007) 163–80 (esp. 178–9)Google Scholar.

38 Cf. Petersen, N. R., The Gospel of John and the Sociology of Light: Language and Characterization in the Fourth Gospel (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1993).Google Scholar

39 It is almost a custom in Johannine studies to separate a ‘profane’ use of the word from a ‘sacred’. The former being an ordinary term for inter human ‘honour’ and the latter having a specific theological meaning coined by John, which should be translated ‘glory’. Many exegetes exclude the ‘profane’ use of the term from their interpretation. E.g. Thüsing, Erhöhung und Verherrlichung, 41–2, 199–201; Dietzfelbinger, Abschied des Kommenden, 283. However, in the following it will be argued that the two different understandings of δόξα in fact belong to a common idea. N. Chibici-Revneanu also includes all instances of δόξα in her treatise. She asks after every exegetical paragraph whether the instance of δόξα terminology is ‘profan-anthropologische oder theologische δόξα (bzw. δοξάζϵιν)?’ and argues that the two are more related than is often claimed. Chibici-Revneanu, Herrlichkeit.

40 J. Frey takes the Johannine reference to Isaiah's vision to include both the temple vision (Isa 6) and the prophetic vision of the δόξα of the Suffering Servant (LXX Isa 52.13). For that reason the comment that Isaiah saw his δόξα does not refer to a pre-existent divine glory but to the glory of the crucified. Frey, ‘Herrlichkeit’, 386. But the fact that the reference to the δόξα-vision functions as the rationale for Isaiah's ability to predict the stubbornness of the Jews (12.40) makes it more likely that his prophetic calling in the temple is in view.

41 It is a characteristic Johannine feature to let quotations, metaphors, and traditions that in the Hebrew Bible concern God refer to Jesus. Cf. Zimmermann, R., ‘Jesus im Bild Gottes. Anspielungen auf das Alte Testament im Johannesevangelium am Beispiel der Hirten Bildfelder in Joh 10’, Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums. Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive (ed. Frey, J. and Schnelle, U. [Hrsg. unter Mitarbeit von J. Schlegel]; WUNT 175; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 81–116Google Scholar. On the use of the OT in the Fourth Gospel, see Obermann, A., Die christologische Erfüllung der Schrift im Johannesevangelium. Eine Untersuchung zur johanneischen Hermeneutik anhand der Schriftzitate (WUNT 2/83; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996)Google Scholar; Menken, M. J. J., Old Testament Quotations in the Fourth Gospel: Studies in Textual Form (Kampen: Kok, 1996)Google Scholar. In this particular instance John's interpretation of Isa 6.1 is in line with a targumic tradition that interprets God's שול as his presence, his shekinah. In fact, in the Isaiah-Targum Isaiah sees the glory of God's shekinah. Evans, C. A., To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9–10 in Early Jewish and Christian Interpretation (JSOTSup 64; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989)Google ScholarPubMed. It is not convincing, as C. A. Evans proposes, that John should be directly dependent on the Targum.

42 In Johannine studies it is a matter of dispute whether the ‘we’ in v. 14 (and 16) refers to the believing community or eyewitnesses. Seen from a narrative perspective, the ‘we’ (1.14, 16) includes the implied author and implied reader and constitutes an especially insightful level of communication which places the readers in a superior cognitive position compared to the narrative persons. Cf. Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 46.

43 Cf. Neyrey, J. H., The Gospel of John (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2007) 17Google Scholar. This interpretation seems more in line with the terminology than decidedly theological interpretations, e.g., that δόξαν ὡς μονογϵνοῦς παρὰ πατρός should mean ‘Die vom Sohn offenbarte Herrlichkeit ist von ‘einzigartiger’ Heilsqualität, weil der Sohn seinen Ausgang ganz in Gott hat'. Schwindt, Gesichte, 416. On the antique household, see, e.g., Osiek, C. and Balch, D. L., Families in the New Testament World: Households and House Churches (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997)Google Scholar. Social-historical commentaries of the Fourth Gospel include Malina, B. J. and Rohrbaugh, R. L., Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998)Google Scholar; Neyrey, The Gospel of John. Social-historical theories are applied to the Johannine concept of glory by Neyrey, The Gospel of John, 216–18; idem, ‘Despising the Shame of the Cross: Honor and Shame in the Johannine Passion Narrative’, Semeia 69 (1996) 113–37; idem, ‘The Trials (Forensic) and Tribulations (Honor Challenges) of Jesus: John 7 in Social Science Perspective’, BTB 26 (1996) 107–24; Collins, M. S., ‘The Question of Doxa: A Socioliterary Reading of the Wedding of Cana’, BTB 25 (1995) 100–109Google Scholar.

44 Cf. the history of research in Hanson, A. T., ‘John I. 14–18 and Exodus XXXIV’, NTS 23 (1977) 90–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 On the allusions to Sinai in John 5, see Dahl, N. A., ‘The Johannine Church and History’, Current Issues in the New Testament Interpretation, FS O.A. Piper (ed. Klassen, W. and Snyder, G. F.; London: SCM, 1962) 124–42Google Scholar.

46 On the concept σάρξ and its function in the Fourth Gospel, see Schwindt, Gesichte, 388–407.

47 Käsemann, E., Jesu letzter Wille nach Johannes 17 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2d rev. ed. 1971) 61–2Google Scholar.

48 Larsen, Recognizing the Stranger, 112–24. According to J. Neyrey, Jesus, by manifesting his glory (2.11), made ‘an honor claim, which the disciples acknowledge’. Neyrey, The Gospel of John, 64. But this statement shows that the Johannine understanding of δόξα/δοξάζϵιν cannot be adequately described in social-historical terms alone. It overlooks that Jesus' δόξα is not just a hierarchical position within the common honour–shame system. He manifests his divine identity in the sign, which the disciples recognize when they believe in him.

49 Both recent monographs on the Johannine δόξα try to resolve the tension. According to N. Chibici-Revneanu faith is not a precondition for the revelation of Jesus' δόξα in the signs, but only to the believers is this δόξα identical with God's δόξα. Chibici-Revneanu, Herrlichkeit, 159. To R. Schwindt the statement in 11.4 expands the idea in 2.11 to a hermeneutic circle. The revelation of δόξα in the signs is an integral part of the unity between a believing understanding and the vision of δόξα. Schwindt, Gesichte, 299. Among the other proposals to dissolve the tension between 2.11 and 11.40 is W. Bittner who claims that John relates signs, δόξα, and faith, but is not interested in the way they are related. Bittner, W. J., Jesu Zeichen im Johannesevangelium. Die Messias-Erkenntnis im Johannesevangelium vor ihrem jüdischen Hintergrund (WUNT 2/26; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1987) 99Google Scholar. C. Welck insists that Jesus' δόξα is only visible to the believers after the passion. For that reason 2.11 concerns the belief of the reader. Welck, Erzählte Zeichen, 89. All proposals seem to neglect the radicalism in the Johannine conception of revelation.

50 Cf. Hallbäck, G., ‘The Gospel of John as Literature: Literary Readings of the Fourth Gospel’, New Readings in John: Literary and Theological Perspectives (ed. Nissen, J. and Pedersen, S.; JSNTSup 182; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999) 31–46 (esp. 45)Google Scholar.

51 On this so called ‘reciprocal immanence’, see Scholtissek, K., In ihm sein und bleiben. Die Sprache der Immanenz in den johanneischen Schriften (HBS 21; Freiburg: Herder, 2000)Google Scholar.

52 Cf. van der Watt, J. G., The Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel according to John (Leiden: Brill, 2000)Google Scholar; Coloe, M. L., Dwelling in the Household of God: Johannine Ecclesiology and Spirituality (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2006)Google Scholar.

53 N. Chibici-Revneanu insists that this eschatological vision is different from the visions of Jesus' δόξα during his earthly life (2.11; 11.40). She argues that the conditions for the vision have changed so that the vision itself is different; and that Jesus' δόξα now can be seen in its complete unity with the father. Chibici-Revneanu, Herrlichkeit, 302. The distinction between appearance and status is a simple way to account for the difference between earthly and eschatological visions.

54 Cf. J.-A. Bühner's presentation of the Jewish representational system. Bühner, Der Gesandte und sein Weg, 181–267. The envoy represents the sender in such a way that the recipients are dealing with the sender himself through the messenger. It would be a complete misunderstanding if the recipients recognize the envoy in his own right. On the contrary, only the one that has sent him can evaluate his worth as a messenger.

55 Cf. Duke, P. D., Irony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985) 78Google Scholar; Chibici-Revneanu, Herrlichkeit, 139–40.

56 Among many others N. Chibici-Revneanu rejects a separation of death and glorification. ‘Eine zeitliche Ausdifferenzierung zwischen Tod und (darauf folgender) “Verherrlichung” hat jedoch m. E. keinen Anhalt am Text’. Chibici-Revneanu, Herrlichkeit, 174. She does not take into account that the results of the glorification, viz. the disciples' understanding of scripture (12.16) and the advent of the Spirit-Paraclete (12.16), in other places are results of the resurrection (2.22) and the transition to the father (15.26; 16.7). In the text the cross is not connected to these events.

57 The Johannine ὥρα is not just the crucifixion but the series of events in the passion narrative. Frey, Eschatologie II, 215–21.

58 J. Frey thinks: ‘Irritierend ist nur der Verweis auf die δόξα, die Jesus bei Gott (παρὰ σοί) vor Grundlegung der Welt schon hatte (Joh 17.5). Sollte die Verherrlichung Jesu in “seiner Stunde” nichts “Neues” bringen, nur die Wiedereinsetzung in eine vormalige δόξα? Und was für eine δόξα sollte dies sein?’ Frey, ‘Herrlichkeit’, 389. According to the distinction between appearance and identity the answer is that it is an appearance that corresponds to his identity. The ‘new’ in this glorification is its role in the narrative structure: ‘In Rahmen des Gesamtentwurfes wird damit die Passion zur letztgültigen Bestätigung der Zugehörigkeit Jesu zum Vater, und in solcher Zugehörigkeit besteht seine Doxa von Anfang an’. Dietzfelbinger, Abschied des Kommenden, 289. N. Chibici-Revneanu distinguishes ‘zwischen δόξα παρὰ πατρός einerseits und δόξα παρὰ πατρί andererseits’. The glorification of Jesus ‘markiert den Übergang von der δόξα παρὰ πατρός zur δόξα παρὰ πατρί’. Chibici-Revneanu, Herrlichkeit, 325–6. Through this distinction she stresses the unity of the concept of glory throughout the gospel. This legitimate project would, however, gain clarity from the distinction between δόξα as appearance and δόξα as identity.

59 This understanding corresponds to the interpretation of the ‘noli me tangere’-scene that the resurrected Jesus is in a liminal state until he is transformed to a divine pneumatic status. D'Angelo, ‘A Critical Note’; Attridge, H. W., ‘“Don't Be Touching Me”: Recent Feminist Scholarship on Mary Magdalene’, in A Feminist Companion to John, vol. 2 (ed. Levine, A.-J. and Blinckenstaff, M.; Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2003) 140–66Google Scholar; Buch-Hansen, G., ‘It is the Spirit that Gives Life’: A Stoic Understanding of Pneuma in John's Gospel (BZNW 173; Berlin etc.: De Gruyter 2010) 353–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar. But exactly because Jesus is in an intermediate status Mary first does not recognize him and mistakes him for an ordinary human (20.15), then she thinks he is the earthly person that she used to know as a teacher (20.16), and finally Jesus tells her to keep a distance (20.17). Compared to the full recognition by the male disciples, who are invited to see and touch Jesus' body (20.20, 27), it is hard to follow the conclusion that the scene is meant to illustrate an especially intimate relation between Jesus and Mary. Against D'Angelo, ‘A Critical Note’, 535–6.

60 Not many commentators notice this parallel because they fail to see the relation between glorification and revelation (e.g., Frey, ‘Herrlichkeit’, 388).

61 The relation between the different verb forms (aorist, future) causes problems for exegetes. Some refer the aorist to the revelation in the signs and the future to the passion. E.g. Barrett, C. K., The Gospel according to St John (London: SPCK, 2d rev. ed. 1978) 426Google Scholar. Others deny the difference and interpret the verbs as a reference to the continuing glorification. E.g. Schnackenburg, R., Das Johannesevangelium. II. Teil (HThKNT 4; Freiburg etc.: Herder, 1971) 486Google Scholar. Again others let the aorist be ‘punctiliar’ and refer to the ‘hour’ whereas the future points to the fate of the disciples after Easter. E.g. Pamment, M., ‘The Meaning of doxa in the Fourth Gospel’, ZNW 74 (1983) 12–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar (esp. 13); cf. Chibici-Revneanu, Herrlichkeit, 187; Thüsing, Erhöhung und Verherrlichung, 194–8. On the basis of the fundamental narrative structure of the gospel it seems possible to relate the verbs to two different acts.

62 N. Chibici-Revneanu calls this ‘Erwachsen eines menschlichen δοξάζϵιν aus dem innergöttlichen δοξάζϵιν’. Chibici-Revneanu, Herrlichkeit, 230.

63 21.19 is atypical for the Fourth Gospel because a specific act—and not recognition as such—glorifies God. Still, Peter's martyr death is an expression of his adherence to the recognition of Jesus and God.

64 The relation of the different glorifications has produced a great deal of exegetical difficulties. At the same time the verses are central to several important interpretations. To W. Thüsing it is the prime witness to his two-stage-theory. The earthly glorification is only a prefiguration (‘Bild’) of the real glorification which will take place after Jesus' resurrection. Thüsing, Erhöhung und Verherrlichung, 235, 239. The temporal confrontation of past and future has also been a prime example of the so-called Johannine fusion of horizons (‘Horizontverschmelzung’). According to this idea the verbs refer to the same events but aorist forms are seen in retrospective whereas the future forms in prospective. Frey, Eschatologie II, 135–6; Frey, ‘Herrlichkeit’, 388–9; cf. Chibici-Revneanu, Herrlichkeit, 213. Neither of these interpretations takes the narrative structures into account.

65 Cf., e.g., Hoegen-Rohls, C., Der nachösterliche Johannes. Die Abschiedsreden als hermeneutischer Schlüssel zum vierten Evangelium (WUNT 2/84; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1996)Google Scholar.

66 ‘Diese Darstellungsweise lässt sich als seine Form der nach johanneischer Überzeugung durch den Geist inspirierten “Erinnerung” begreifen, in der den Zeugen im nachösterlichen Rückblick die wahre Bedeutung des Wirkens und Geschickes Jesu sowie der Schriftaussagen über ihn erschlossen wurde’. Frey, ‘Herrlichkeit’, 394; cf. Frey, Eschatologie II, 247–83.

67 Frey, ‘Herlichkeit’, 394.

68 ‘Ganz gleich, wie hoch die Kenntnis und Benutzung der Synoptiker im Joh veranschlagt wird—dieses Werk zeigt gegenüber den Synoptikern ein fortschrittenes Stadium der christologischen Entwicklung und eine dort nicht gegebene, ausdrückliche Reflexion über die hier vorliegende Neuinterpretation der Geschichte Jesu’. Frey, ‘Herrlichkeit’, 396.