^{page 114 note 1} Cf. Chrysostom, , Home. in Jo. 65 (P.G. 59, 361);Google ScholarTheophylact, , In Jo. (P.G.124, 109);Google ScholarEuthymius, , In Jo. (P.G. 129, 1353);Google ScholarAlex, Ammonius. Frag. in Jo. (P.G. 85, 1472);Google ScholarPanopolitanus, Nonnus, Paraph. in Jo. (P.G. 43, 848);Google ScholarScholia Vet. (P.G. 106, 1264.

^{page 114 note 2} Comm. in Jo. (G.C.S. 28, 184–5). After having identified the τκνα as the patriarchs, prophets etc., he adds: .

^{page 114 note 3} Comm. in Fo (P.G. 74, 69). For Cyril, we are all children of God because created by him, because created in his image, honoured by him, and given dominion over all the earth. The fact that we are ‘scattered’ is due to original sin.

^{page 115 note 1} Caiaphas de sola genie Judaeorum prophetavit...Sed noverat evangelista esse alias oves...quas oportebat adduci... Haec autem per praedestinationem dicta stint; nam neque oves eius, necfilii Dei adhuc erant, qui nondum crediderant.’Tract, in Jo. 49 (C.C.S.L.432,27).

^{page 115 note 2} Alcuinus, , In Jo. (P.L. 100, 904);Google ScholarBeda, , In Jo. (P.L.92, 782);Google Scholar cf. also Hom. 6 (C.C.S.L. 122, 6, 25).

^{page 115 note 3} Rupertus, , In Jo. x (P.L. 169, 646–7).Google Scholar Glossa Ordinaria (P.L. 144, 401).

^{page 115 note 4} Cf. Super evangelium Ioannis lectura (Marietti, 1952), VII, 8, 1580.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 5} J Maldonatus, Comm. in Jo. ad loc.

^{page 115 note 6} Hoskyns, Schanz, Holtzmann, Knabenbauer, Godet, Losiy, Calmes, Bauer W., Zahn, Lagrange, Strathmann, Schlatter, Lightfoot, Brown, Barrett. Dodd certainly includes the ‘Jews of the Dispersion’, he does not seem to include the Jews of Palestine. Dodd, C.H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (1960), p. 282.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 7} ‘The elements of the true “people” were scattered throughout the world, as Jews, and Jews of the dispersion, and Gentiles’.—Westcott, B. F., The Gospel according to St John (1958),Google Scholarad loc. ‘Who are “the children of God who are scattered abroad”? There is…every reason…to identify them with…the Jews of the dispersion.’—Robinson, J. A. T., ‘The destination and purpose of St John's Gospel’, in Twelve New Testament Studies, p. 120Google Scholar (reprinted from N.T.S. VI (1960), 117–31.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 8} This equivalence is clearly stated by almost all the authors consulted although, occasionally, nothing is said about (e.g. Dodd).

^{page 115 note 9} Καί έπίσΤησον ηλ δῤνασαι Τ⊙ μέν ονομα ΤοŨ ‘λαοŨ’ λαβεΤν είς τούς πεπιΤομñς, τό δέ τοŨ ‘έθνους’ ελς ροῤς λοιπούς Comm. in Jo. ad loc. (G.C.S. 28, 169–70).Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 10} ‘On Caiaphas’ lips the expressions “the people” and ” will have carried the same meaning. But in the light of 11, 51–52 the reader is meant to perceive that, while the reference in the “people” is to the chosen people, the Jews, “the whole nation’ Lightfoot, R.H. (Evans, C. F., ed.), St John's Gospel (1960), p. 230.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 11} ‘Das jüdische Volk heißt jier wie nicht selten έθνος, statt dessen v. 50 λαός.’ Bultmann, R., Das Evangelium des Johannes (1953). p. 313Google Scholar note 10. Commenting on ύπέρ το έθνους Barrett writes ‘Cf. v. 50. are evidently used assynonyms.’ Barrett, C. K.. The Gospel according to St John (1955), p. 339.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 12} Commenting on τό έθνος, chanz writes: “die ganze Nation, wáhrend λαός das thokratische Volk bezeichner’. Schanz, P., Kommentar über das Evangelium des hl. Johannes (1885), p. 423.Google Scholar Godet thinksthat the use of ‘λαóς et έθνος dans le v. 50 n'est point arbitaire. Le premier…désigne la mutitude des individus formant la nation théocratique…tandis que le second…désingne Israel comme corps politique.’ Godet, F., Commentaire sur l'Évangile de Saint Jean (Neauchâtel, 1902), III, 153.Google Scholar Westcott (op. cit. ad loc.) concurs with Godet.

^{page 116 note 1} Westcott (op.cit.ad loc.) came close to doing so but his explanation, as we shall see, is insufficient. For him both λας and θνоς designate the Jews. His explanation of θνоς only refers to the use in ν. 52.

^{page 116 note 2} ‘This (for the people) is omitted by some early Latin patristic evidence, Augustine, Chrysostom, Theodoret and some Ethiopic witnesses. Normally this would not be suffcient basis for putting it in brackets, but the redemptive theology that the phrase seems to imply does seem strange on the lips of Caiaphas.‘—Brown, R. B., The Gospel according to St John (1966), p. 440.Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 3} Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti libros (1958), p. 174.Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 4} has a less precise sociological meaning than .

^{page 116 note 5} According to Bertram (T.W.N.T., art. έθνος, II, 362)Google Scholar both terms designate a group of men (or animals) that generally or evidently belong together (no special reson or foundation is implied). It is only little by little, in the course of Jewish religious history, that the two terms were distinguished and that was related to Israel, to the Gentiles. Dahl, N. A., “‘A People for His Name” (Acts xv. 14)’, N.T.S. IV 1957–1958, 325–6,Google Scholar holds that □ came to designate the chosen people not because it means people in the national sense, but simply because grammaticel usage avoided using ∼⌉ℷ iconstruct state. Whatever view is adopted, the fact remains that □; did come to designate Israel in a special way.

^{page 116 note 6} The Targum Onkelos uses for Israel and for gentile nations. Cf. for example: (Exod. xix. 5).Here translates the Hebrew . But in Deut. xxvi. 19 we find the Hebrew translated by .

^{page 116 note 7} Relatively well attested. Unfortunately there are still no published fragments for Deut. vii. 6 and xiv. 2.

^{page 116 note 8} The Cairo Geniza translated Exod. xix. 5. … (F, Frag. ed. Kahle, P., Masoreten des Westens, II, 56)Google Scholar and Deut. xxvi. 18: (Frag. D, ed. P. Kahle, op. cit. p. 27), thereby introducing a distinction nopt only where the Hebrew does, but even when the Hebrew does not distinguish (Exod. xix. 5)between □'ŋγ and □'┐ℷ. It would seem that the old Palestinian Targum reserved the plural of ℵŋ┐ℵ to translate □'┐ℷ. However, the semantic evolution of the word is still a riddle. Cf. Dahl, N. A., art. cit. pp. 322–3.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 1} Dahl apparently implies that they are. ‘The sociological vagueness of the term □О, which gets its precise meaning from the context, is to an extent taken over by λασ in the Septuagint, λασ being in itself a sociological term with a rather fluid meaning.’ Dahi, N. A., art. cit. p. 326.Google Scholar He does not point out what is specific to the LXX use of λας.

^{page 117 note 2} Jos. iii. 17; iv.1; Isa. ix. 2; xxvi. 2; lviii. 2; Jer. ix. 8; xl. 9 (LXX = xxxiii. 9).

^{page 117 note 3} Isa. lv. 5; lx. 5; Ezek. xx. 41,; xxviii. 25; Zech. xiv. 14.

^{page 117 note 4} In Isa. lv. 5; lx. 5; Ezek. xxviii. 25 the reason would be stylistic. The word λαóι is found in the immediate vicinity of Éθνη. Zech. xiv. 14 and Ezek. xx. 41 are puzzling. We should remember, however, that the use of the plural differs from that of the singular.

^{page 117 note 5} ‘Fast stets, wo Éθνοζ,Éθνη für ΔЫ Δ'ŋЫ steht, geschieht es, weil Nichtisraeliten gemeint sind’, T.W.N.T. art. λασ. Iv, 32 note 15. Cf. Exod. i. 9; xv. 14; xix. 5; xxi. 8; Deut. vii. 6; Isa. ii. 4, etc.

^{page 117 note 6} Although Éθνη translates '┐ℷ close to 700 times, it translates □О, some 127 times only. Of these we have found that Éθνη refers to Israel only in Gen. xxviii. 3. xlviii. 4; (Exod. i. 9); Exod. xxiii. ii; Lev. xix. 16; XX. 2; xxi. i; Esther iii. 8, ii; Ezek. xxxviii. 12. We would point out that in Esther iii. 8, ii and Ezek. xxxviii. 12 it is a Gentile who is speaking. The comparison between Ezek. xxxviii. 12 and xxxviii. 14, 6 clearly shows the difference. Exod. i. 9 is critically doubtful (B reads ytsos). That (which is found only in Gen. xxviii. 3 and xlviii. 4) should have been translated twice by σуναγωγαigrave; Éθνών may be due to the fact that the LXX interprets these words in the light of Gen. xii. 3. xvii. 4–6. Cf. G. von Rad, Genesis (1960), p. 195: ‘One connected Abraham's call with the hope of a universal extension of God's salvation.’ Cf. further pp. 155–6, 277, 335. It is not clear to the writer why Éθνος was used instead of λαῤς in the four remaining cases.

^{page 117 note 7} Gen. xxv. 8; xlix. 33; Exod. xxx. 33, 38; XXXI. I4 Lev. vii. 20, 21, 25, 27; XVII. 9; xix. 8; xxi. 4, 14, 15; xxiii. 29; Num. ix. 13; xx. 24; xxvii. I3; xxxi. 2; Deut. xxxii. 8, 50. Deut. xxxiii. 3 would be the only exception, but the text is corrupt.

^{page 118 note 1} T.W.N.T. art. Éθνος, II, 363.Google Scholar Bertram points out there is here an open tendency to substitute Éθνη for υαοĺ, the word one would normally expect to find.

^{page 118 note 2} Cf. I. de la Potterie, ‘L'origine et le sens Primitif du mot “laïc”' Esprit (1965), pp. 18–19.

^{page 118 note 3} The equivalence λας-Israel, θνη-Gentiles is so common in the LXX that the reader is referred to a concordance.

^{page 118 note 4} Strathmann, H., art. λαός, T.W.N.T. IV, 35.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 5} ‘Handelt es sich bei ihm doch stets um israelitische Bevölkerung. Handelt es sich um eine nichtjüdische Volksmenge es sei denn um Christen, so spricht jedenfalls LK nie von λαός, sondern stets von őχλος oder őχλοι.’ H. Strathmann, Ibid. p. 52. Cf. Acts xiii. 45; xiv. 11–19; xvi. 22; xvii. 8, 13; xix. 26, 35.

^{page 118 note 6} Luke ii. 30 f. substitutes λαν in his quotation of Isa. lii. 10. Paul does much the same in Rom. XV. 11, quoting Ps. cxvii. 11. This is especially evident in Acts iv. 25, 27. The author, in reading the λαοí of Ps. ii. I, naturally thought of Israel and wrote: ζΎν έθεσιν καλ λαοĨς 'Ισραήλ. In the Psalm, however, λαοí stands for the Gentiles. Cf. art. λαóς. T.W.N.T. IV, 51.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 7} Cf. Luke i. 68, 77; ii. 10, 32; vii. 16; xxiv. 19; Matt. i. 21; ii. 6; xiii. 15; xv. 8; Acts iv. 10; vii. 24; xiii. 17; xxvi. 17, 23; xxviii. 27, 28.

^{page 118 note 8} Luke vii. 5; xxiii. 2; Acts x. 22; xxiv.2, 10, 17; xxvi. 4; xxviii. 19.

^{page 119 note 1} Thus, in Luke vii. 5, the Jews are referring to the man of Capernaum, in xxiii. 2 they are speaking to Pilate. In Acts x. 22 the messengers of Cornelius are speaking, in xxiv. 2, 10, 17 we are dealing with a speech before Felix. The only case that is a little strange is that of Acts xxviii. 19, but it is under the influence of the foregoing speech and refers back to xxiv. 17 and xxvi. 4. Strathmann, , art. cit. pp. 51–2.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 2} A Gentile would normally not distinguish between the nation as ‘the theocratic people’ and as a ‘civil organization’.

^{page 119 note 3} Although indicates Israel, Israel is but a foreshadowing of the Christian community. It is this community that is the object of ii. 17; iv. 9; x. 30; xiii. 12.

^{page 119 note 4} With: C P 046 051 lat sy.

^{page 119 note 5} I Cor. v. I; xii. 2; I Thess. iv. 5; I Pet. ii. 12; 3 John 7.

^{page 119 note 6} Cf. T.W.N.T. IV, 53.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 7} Dupont tried to gather further evidence for this position by assuming that Acts xv. 14 is a direct and revealing modification of Deut. xiv. 2. Dahl has conclusively shown that this is not the case. Cf. J. Dupont, ‘ (Acts xv. 14)’, N.T.S. III (1956–1957), 4750,Google Scholar and the answer of N. A. DahI, art. cit.

^{page 119 note 8} ‘Ici ας est sand l'article: Dieu a pris d'entre les gentils un peuple, c'est-à-dire parmi les gentils il a fait choix d'un peuple comme il l'avait fait pour Israel.’ E. Jacquier, Les Acts des Apótres, ad loc. Barde, Renié interpret in this sense. The RSV and the Jerusalem Bible also translate ‘a people’.

^{page 120 note 1} Dahl, N. A., art. cit. p. 326.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 2} Neither word occurs in the Epistles.

^{page 120 note 3} Barrett and Bultmann cf. above, p. 115 n. II. This would be possible in a writer like. Nicetas Stethatos for whom the Gentiles too are a λαóς, but perhaps not in John. Stethatos wrote: íνα τñσ δουλεĺασ Τούσ έλευθεπσν καλ Тоùς δùο λαοùσ, λέΥω δñ τν έθνν ñμν καĺ 'λοσαλων ῤμν συναΥΥñ δια τñσ πλοΤεωσ καĺ…ένα λαόν ποιρσñ έν έαυΤộ—λộΥος ΚαТṳ ľоуδαíων XIV (S.C. 81, 428).

^{page 121 note 1} It is only in the NT that in the singular is not applied to Israel.

^{page 121 note 2} If we follow Lightfoot we would have to suppose that, since θνоςin vv. 51 ^b-52 evidently refers to the Jews, it no longer has the meaning it had in v.50. Origen's reading, ‘it is fitting that one man should die for the Jews and not all the non-Jews perish’, is also very awkward.

^{page 121 note 3} Commenting on ‘nation’ in v. 52, he writes: ‘St John does not repeat the word “people”. The Jews at this crisis had ceased to be a “people”. They were a “nation” only, as one of the nations of the world.’ Op. cit. p. 175.

^{page 121 note 4} There is no doubt that the Jews had ceased to be a ‘people’ in the eyes of John, but it was not ‘as this crisis’ only; even in v. 50 ‘people7rsquo; does not refer to the Jews. It is probably because John wants to reserve for the Jews and λας for the Christian community that the ‘Gentiles’ are called ʿÉλληnu;ης in xii. 20 (probably proiselytes) and vii. 35 (where he is referring not to the Jews of the Diaspora, but to the Greeks).

^{page 122 note 1} The texts advanced by most authors to prove that the Jews are included (v.g. viii. i; xi. 45; xii. ii) are not to be interpreted in this way. That the Jews are not excluded from salvation is so self-evident that John did not bother (except in xi. 48–52) to make the point. If he insists on their lack of faith it is only because they are taken as the prototype of unbelief, not because Jesus’ death would be ‘advantageous’ to everyone except to the Jews.

^{page 122 note 2} This would be another example of what O. Cullmann has called ‘doppeldeutige Ausdrucke‘Der johanneische Gebrauch doppeldeutiger Ausdrücke als Schlussel zum Verständnis des vierten Evangeliums’, T.Z. IV (1948), 360–72.

^{page 122 note 3} We are not implying thatare merely synonymous substitutes for in the ‘common’ sense, as is. They too have specific purposes in the Gospel but, besides their ‘specific meanings’, these words are also found as synonyms for (= in the‘vulgar’sense), cf. vi. 24 and vi. 41,52; vii. 11, 20 with viii. 52. For = cf. vi. 3 with vi. 14 and, especially, vii. 43 with x. 19.

^{page 122 note 4} Only twice, however, is there a parallel in the Synoptics. In both instances they too have δχλоς: John vi. 2 = Matt. xiv. 13 b; Luke ix. 11 (both have the plural instead of the singular); John vi. 5 = Matt. xiv. 12; Mark vi. 34.

^{page 122 note 5} Cf. vii. 49 and, in this light, vii. 12, 31, 32, 40, 43; xii. 18.

^{page 123 note 1} The passage vii. 53–viii. 11 is omitted by textual witnesses: ⁷⁵ B W sy co. Its first appearance is in the Codex Bezae.

^{page 123 note 2} It is amusing to notice how the Vulgate respects the text to such an extent that it always translates λας by ‘populus’ and χλоς by ‘turba’, even when ‘populus’ would be more in harmony with the context than ‘turba’.

^{page 123 note 3} Cf. I. de Potterie, Ia, ‘Jésus roi et juge d'aprés Jean 19, 13’, Biblica, XLI (1960), 217–47.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 4} In xii. 19 John plays on the two senses of the word .

^{page 123 note 5} In xi. 48–52 Jesus’ death is decided upon; xviii. 14 marks the official opening of his trial, xi. 48–52 is particularly important since it cannot be separated from the resurrection of Lazarus, the symbolical burial of Christ, his triumphant entry into Jerusalem and the arrival of the first Gentiles, xi. 48–52 crystallizes the whole section: Christ’s death and its purpose.

^{page 123 note 6} ‘Andererseits wird auch bei Joh nichts sichtbar von einer Erweiterung des Namens auf das neue Gottesvolk. Wahrhaftiger Israelit ist man schon als ans Gesetz und damit an Gott gebundener Jude.’ T. W.N. T. art. ‘λσραήλ, III, 388.Google Scholar

^{page 124 note l} ‘It is Nathanael, the genuine Israelite, who hails him; and therefore the “King of Israel” must be understood as the king of those like Nathanael who believe.’ R. E. Brown, op. cit. p. 87. In the same sense, C. K. Barrett, op. cit. ad loc.

^{page 124 note 2} Very well phrased by R. E. Brown: ‘In the theological progression of chapter i which capsulizes the disciples’ gradual growth in insight throughout the ministry of Jesus, John may well have wished to include in “Son of God” a confession of the divinity of Jesus.’ Op. cit. p. 88. It is certain that for John the title υιóς τоũ θεоũ is that which expresses the person and mystery of Christ to its fullest extent.

^{page 124 note 3} St Thomas wrote: ‘Si…intellexisset eum esse Filium Dei per naturam, non dixisset Γu es Rex Israel solum, sed totius mundi.’ Op. cit. ad loc. He was right, but should have drawn the opposite conclusion: the title βασιλεÚς τоũ l'σραήλ ‘souligne plus fortement la souveraineté de Jésus sur son Église, dans la mesure où celle-ci prend la succession ďIsraël et où Jésusdr;mène la royauté ďIsraël à son accomplissement…mais le titre de roi vise aussi sa souveraineté sur toute Ia création’. Cullmann, O., Christologie du Nouveau Testament (1958), p. 191.Google Scholar

^{page 124 note 4} ‘Jésus avait porté son témoignage devant les hommes pour ĉtre accueilli par eux avec docilité et foi (18, 37): ce devait être le fondement de sa royauté spirituelle.’ I. de la Potterie, ‘Jésus roi et juge…’, p. 241. It is of these that Jesus is King, they constitute the new people. That the inscription on the cross in John xix. 19 reads ‘King of the Jews’ and not ‘King of Israel’ is probably due to the great weight of tradition on this point.

^{page 124 note 5} We read with A B C, etc.

^{page 124 note 6} We are not taking John xxi into account (where Jesus manifests himself τоις μαθηταις: xxi. I twice; xxi. 14), since it is probably an addition. These three uses of φανερóω, however, are in perfect harmony with the rest of the Gospel.

^{page 125 note 1} ‘World’ is taken here in the ‘positive’ sense of‘universe’, ‘mankind’, ‘men’, which God loved (iii. 16) and which Christ came to save (iii. 17; vi. 33, 51; x. 36; xii. 47, etc.).

^{page 125 note 2} For the parallelism between vv. 2–10 and the resulting irony, cf. de Ia Potterie, I., ‘Naître de ľeau et de ľEsprit’, La vie scion ǏEsprit, p. 44, and pp. 46–7.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 1} This theme runs all through the OT. Cf. especially Deut. xxx. 1–3; Jer. xxiii. 1; Ezek. xx. 34. It is also found in conjunction with συνṳγω: lx. 4 = all Israel's children (LXX:τέκνα) will be gathered from afar. Baruch is even more explicit: ‘See, your children (τέκνα) are gathered (συνηγμένα) from east to west’ (Baruch v. 5).

^{page 126 note 2} I John iii. 1, 2, 10; v. 2; 2 John 1, 4, 13; 3 John 4.

^{page 126 note 3} With the exception of iii. 10 where we have , opposed to (in the same verse).

^{page 126 note 4} For the meaning of πιоτεύειν εις τó őνоμα cf. J. Dupont, art. ‘Nom de Jésus’, D.S. and C. H. Dodd, op. cit. p. 184.

^{page 126 note 5} The word τκνα is used without qualification, but the context clearly indicates that the Jews wrongly consider themselves . In v. 41 they say: ἔνα πατρα ἔχоμεν τΘεν.

^{page 126 note 6} The γεγεννήμεθα is followed by ένα πατέρα έχоμεν τóν θεóν. They evidently claim to be born of God. Cf. i 12!

^{page 127 note 1} Which in I John is the exact opposite of .

^{page 127 note 2} Vv. ii. 29–iii. 10 are a unit. The parallelism between ii. 29 and iii. 10 is unmistakable: the same ‘sign’ discloses the same hidden reality.

^{page 127 note 3} Cf. Maldonatus, op. cit. ad loc: ‘ Dispersos, quia non omnes in uno loco aut in uno erant populo, quemadmodum Iudaei.’

^{page 127 note 4} The ‘unity’ of which John is speaking is a unity of mutual knowledge, mutual love and mutual indwelling. Cf. d'Aragon, J.-L., ‘La notion johannique de l'unité’, Sc.E. XI (1959), 111–19.Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 1} The και has been taken as referring to the verb and not to ‘and not for the nation only, but that he might also gather together into one the scattered children of God’. This translation, which is also that adopted by the A.V., the R.V. and the Bible defér., seems to be demanded by the only other occurrence of the construction λλʾ iνα και… in this Gospel and in the NT. In John xii. 9 the και( cannot very well refer to Lazarus. The Jews come ‘ not only on account of Jesus, but also to see Lazarus’ (R.S.V.). To translate: ‘but to see Lazarus also’ (A.V., R.V.) would presuppose that the Jews had come to see Jesus (just as they had come to see the man who had returned from the dead)—something which is not stated in the first member and very probably not implied. The R.S.V. omits the και, as do some witnesses of the Old Latin versions (a b c f ffz) and of the Latin Vulgate (Z^* Be Ma D E T).

^{page 128 note 2} Theophylact, Euthymius, Scholia Vetera, Knabenbauer, Schanz, Godet.

^{page 128 note 3} Augustine, Rupertus, Glossa Ordinaria, St Thomas, Loisy, Barrett, d'Aragon.

^{page 128 note 4} This is the opinion of Cyril of Alemandria Cf. In Jo. ad loc. (P.G. 74, 69).

^{page 128 note 5} Dodd sees our text in the light of Gnosticism. ‘Already before the coming of Christ there were in the world those in whom those in whom the divine Logos was present’. Op. cit. p.282. ‘The intelligent Hellenistic reader would be aware of the widespread doctrine of a divine seed (σπήρμα) in man…’ Ibid. p. 372 note 1. Westcott speaks of a ‘general action of the Word before the Incarnation’.Op. cit. p. lxvi.

^{page 128 note 6} d'Aragon, J.-L., art. cit. pp. 115–16Google Scholar note 8.

^{page 128 note 7} Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (1965), p. 297.Google Scholar