^{page 398 note 1} N.T.S. VI (1959–1960), 117–31.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 2} Biblical Essays (London, 1893), p. 135.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 3} Robinson, , p. 119.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 4} Ibid. pp. 121 ff.

^{page 398 note 5} Ibid. p. 122, referring to iii. 3.

^{page 398 note 6} Robinson, , p. 123.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 7} ‘A l'arriére-plan d'un dialogue Johannique’, Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophic Religieuses, I (1957), 5–17. ‘In saying this I must dissent from the very interesting suggestions made by C. H. D o d d …’ (Robinson, p. 123).Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 1} Robinson, , pp. 121 f.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 2} In using a term of this sort it is not meant to imply that all the Jews (or even many of them) were engaged in this discussion, any more than that all the Christians were. It simply refers to those Jews who did consider (and perhaps argue about) the person of Jesus.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 3} Robinson, , p. 123.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 4} Ibid. p. 124.

^{page 399 note 5} See, for example, the commentaries of Hoskyns, p. 173; Lightfoot, pp. 3 and 64; Barrett, P. 143.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 1} Robinson, , p. 118; cf. p. 128f.: ‘In the course of his work he writes damningly of “the Jews”— yet never perhaps with quite the animosity that shows through Paul's words in I Thess. ii. 14–16.’Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 2} vi. 41.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 3} vi. 42.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 4} vi. 52.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 5} vi. 59.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 6} vi. 60, 66.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 7} viii. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 8} viii. 59.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 9} A particularly clear example of this division occurs in x. 19–21: ‘These words once again caused a split among the Jews (σχσμα πάλν έλένΕτο). Many of them said, “He is possessed….” Others said, “No one possessed…could speak like this.”’Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 1} Cf. further xi. 57.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 2} vii. 46.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 3} vii. 50 f.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 4} vii. 49.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 5} Other references to the Pharisees are i. 24, where ‘the Jews of Jerusalem’ send a deputation to find out about John, but the Pharisees (although a part of the deputation) are seen as those whose concern is not to pursue the inquiry (cf. v. 19 ‘priests and Levites’), but to question John's right to baptize at all if he cannot lay claim to any of the categories which might legitimately be expected to do so; iv. 1, a kind of ‘progress-note’ in which it is made clear that the Pharisees are keeping themselves informed of the rise of Jesus to public notice; viii. 13, where they refuse to accept the testimony of Jesus because it is unsupported, and his appeals to an ‘invisible’ Father do not dissolve the legal point which they are pressing; xii. 19, a realization that more severe measures are needed.Google Scholar

^{page 401 note 6} A possible explanation may lie in the fact that in ch. ix (as will be suggested below) John is shifting the ground of his discussion: before this he has been considering the person of Jesus, and how he stands in relation to Judaism; in ch. ix he turns to the followers of Jesus, and the way in which they are related to Judaism (for example, he envisages expulsion from the Synagogue, vv. 22 and 34). Thus the division is not within Judaism alone, but between Judaism as a whole and the community emerging from it of those who have received the light of the world (ix. 4). Perhaps John is trying to emphasize this new form of division.Google Scholar

^{page 402 note 1} The language in vv. 15–18 is very suggestive of the figure of Abraham: the testimony of John (u. 15) recalls the later description of Jesus in relation to Abraham (viii. 58), ό όπíσω μον έρξόμενος έμπροσθέν μον γέγονεν Τ πρΤός μον ν…πρν 'Αβαάμ γενέσα έγώ εγ. The phrase el? εíς τόυ κόλπου (i. 18) is one which is well associated with Abraham (cf. Luke xvi. 22 and 23; and for illustrations see under κόλπος R. Meyer in Kittel, T.W.N.T. III, 824–6; Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary). The word μονογενής, even though it may mean much more in Johannine usage, recalls the unique status of Abraham (especially if the reading ό μονογενής νός is adopted). See, for example, Targ. Is. li. 2:; Ber. R. xliii. 7, where Abraham instructs those who have enjoyed his hospitality to say the following blessing:. As a reward for thus making the name of God known, God says:. (Amongst many examples see further the discussion in Qph. R. III. xi. 2 as to why Abraham was not created.) There is no question in the Jewish tradition that Abraham received ξάρνάντí ξάρτος (John i. 16), and that this was transmitted to his descendants (for an example of the way in which this estimate of Abraham was summarized, see Sirach 44, 19–23). The problem then arose how it was possible for him to be the man of faith, the friend of God (Isa. xli. 8; II Chron. xx. 7), when the law had not yet been given to Moses as a guidance for men. The question was posed, for example, by R. Joseph: ‘R. Safra said: The prayer of Abraham is due when the walls begin to grow dark (the afternoon prayer is usually ascribed to Isaac, but since presumably Abraham taught it to him Abraham is given the credit). R. Joseph said: Are we then to learn from Abraham?’ (B. Yom. 28 b). The answer most generally arrived at was that by his obedience and close association with God, Abraham had kept the whole Torah instinctively. This is the answer attributed to Rab in B. Yom. 28 b: ‘Our father Abraham kept the whole Torah’, and he cites Gen. xxvi. 5 in support. (For further examples, see especially M. Kid. 82a; B.A.Z. 3a; Ber. R. 95.3; and for specific laws Jub. vi. 11, xvi. 21, xxii. 1–4; Test. Lev. ix. 12; Ber. R. 49. 2.) He lived the godly life without any need for external control or guidance. Perhaps John, by using language which has strong associations with Abraham, is suggesting that the relationship of Abraham to the Law is a help in understanding that of Jesus to ά νάμος δά Μωσέως (i. 17). He too lives immediately with God. It is not, of course, meant to imply that Jesus is exactly like Abraham, since the language is completely reapplied; and in ch. viii John makes it clear that Jesus transcends even Abraham himself.Google Scholar

^{page 402 note 2} These verses read almost as a summary of the most important possibilities: Jesus; Lamb of God; Rabbi; the Messiah; the man spoken of by Moses in the Law, and by the prophets; Jesus son of Joseph, from Nazareth; Son of God; king of Israel; Son of Man.Google Scholar

^{page 402 note 3} The reply of the woman in v. 19 has often been taken as a sign of awe because Jesus has shown such a great knowledge of her life (e.g. Barrett, p. 197; Dodd, Interpretation, p. 315; Hoskyns, p. 243). But if this is so the connexion is very odd: ‘I can see that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshipped on this mountain….’ Perhaps, therefore, Jesus is being represented as another Amos, a prophet coming from the South to the North to criticize the Northern people. This would explain the abrupt transition from prophet to place of worship, particularly where the legitimacy of these is being called in question (cf. Amos vii. 12 and 13). It is also quite possible that κρε is meant not respectfully but sarcastically, since in vv. I I and 15 it introduces her most rationalizing doubts: ‘…you have no bucket and this well is deep. How can you give me “living water”?’; ‘…give me that water, and then I shall not be thirsty, nor have to come all this way to draw’.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 1} See Lightfoot, R. H., The Gospel Message ofSt Mark (Oxford, 1950), chs. 5 and 6.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 2} iii. 3, 5.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 3} iii. 13f.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 4} iii. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 5} v. I.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 6} v. 19.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 1} V. 32 and 33.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 2} v. 36 and 37.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 3} v. 40.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 4} V. 39 and 40.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 5} v. 45–7.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 6} vi. 32, 49–52.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 7} Vi. 42.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 8} See p. 400.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 9} vi. 42.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 1} vii. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 2} vii. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 3} vii. 22–4.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 4} vii. 25 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 5} vii. 26.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 6} vii. 28.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 7} vii. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 8} vii. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 9} vii. 35, 36; viii. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 10} viii. 31 and 59.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 11} viii. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 1} ix. 8 and 9.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 2} ix. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 3} ix. 22 and 34.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 4} ix. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 5} ix. 34.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 6} ix. 35–7.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 7} x. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 8} x. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 9} x. 11 and I4ff.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 10} x. 19.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 11} καπερεπάΤε ό 'ησος έν Τ ερ έ Τ σΤο Το ΣογομνΤος (X. 23).Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 12} x. 26–7.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 13} x. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 14} x. 33–6.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 15} x. 33.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 1} x. 27–8.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 2} x. 34–5.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 3} x. 39.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 4} xi. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 5} xi. 45–6.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 6} xii. 42.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 7} xiii. I.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 8} The question of the historicity of the Gospel is not affected by the possibility that John may have put the life of Jesus in this setting. In point of fact, its reliability in detail may well be enhanced by a realization of the Jewish contacts, as Dr Dodd, C. H. has recently been exploring (Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge, 1963). For John the debate only arises because of what the life of Jesus was—and is. For this reason he involves the two elements throughout.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 408 note 1} The real criticisms of Dr Robinson's view lie elsewhere. Why, for example, should it be necessary to explain Jewish festivals to Jews, Hellenized though they were?Google Scholar