^{page 396 note 2} Allen, E. L., ‘The Jewish Christian Church in the Fourth Gospel’, J.B.L. LXXIV (1955), 88–92;Google ScholarBligh, J., ‘The Church and Israel according to St John and St Paul’, Stud. Paulin. Congressus 1961, I (Rome, 1963), 151–6.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 3} We use the word ‘church’ somewhat loosely in this article to indicate the Christian community. The word ⋯κκλησ⋯–3.

^{page 397 note 1} Ibid. p. 154.

^{page 398 note 1} CfBornhäuser, K., Das Johannesevangelium eine Missionsschrift für Israel (Gütersloh, 1928), pp. 139–52;Google ScholarLütgert, W., ‘Die Juden im Johannesevangelium’, in: Festschr. C. F. G. Heinrici (1914), pp. 147–54;Google ScholarJocz, J., ‘Die Juden im Johannesevangelium’, Judaica IX (1953), 129–42, pp. 139 ff.;Google ScholarGrasser, E., ‘Die antijüdische Polemik im Johannesevangelium’, N.T.S. XI (1964–1965), 74–90.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 2} In this sense it is found some 33 times out of 70. For a statistical breakdown and references for the various meanings, cf. Grässer, art. cit. pp. 76–7. To these one must add the meaning ‘Judean’ (John xi–xii!). Bornhäuser (op. cit.) tried to reduce the meaning of ᾽׀ονδαῖος to inhabitants of the province of Judea who were strict observers of the Law. P. Richardson (Israel in the Apostolic Church, S.N.T.S. 10, Cambridge, 1969) tries to reduce the use of the term in the negative sense to the native Jews of Palestine, as opposed to Diaspora Jews.

^{page 398 note 3} Ί׀σρα⋯λ is used four times (i. 31, 49; iii. 10; xii. 13), Ί׀σραηλ⋯της once (i. 48). Ί׀ονδαῑος is used some seventy times. The terms are obviously not equivalent!

^{page 398 note 4} The adverb, in attributive position, can be given adjectival force (Nathanael is a ‘true’ Israelite, as opposed to ‘false’ Israelites) or be left with its adverbial force (Nathanael is ‘truly’ an Israelite, as opposed to others, who are unworthy of the name). The difference is negligible.

^{page 398 note 5} Bultmann, p. 73, note 8: ‘für den (Evangelisten…ist) Nathanael eine symbolische Gestalt…’; De Goedt, M., ‘Un schème de révélation dans le quatrième évangile’, N.T.S. VII (1961–1962), 142–50, esp. p. 145: ‘Nathanael est présenté…comme le type du vrai israélite…’.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 6} At i. 41–5 the other disciples make an implicit confession of faith, but we cannot speak of a formal ⋯μολογ⋯α, nor does their acknowledgement reach the heights of the confession of Nathanael.

^{page 398 note 7} Contra Thomas Aq.; Boismard, M.-E. (Du baptême à Cana (Paris, 1956), p. 104);Google ScholarJeremias, J. (Die Berufung des Nathanael', Angelos III (1928), 2–5, esp. p. 4);Google Scholar Lagrange; Lightfoot; Bernard; Barrett; De Goedt, art. cit. p. 145.

^{page 398 note 8} Rightly Loisy (1st ed. p. 261); W. Bauer; Schlatter; Brown (pp. 87 f. – with hesitation). Bultmann (p. 74, note 1) distinguishes between βασιλεὺς το⋯Ί׀σρα⋯λ = Messiah and ⋯ νἱ⋯ς το⋯ θεο⋯, added by the evangelist. If ⋯ νἱ⋯ς το⋯ θεο⋯ were ‘im Sinne der Quelle’, it too would be a messianic title; for the evangelist it means more (cf. p. 64, note 3).

^{page 399 note 1} Nathanael's confession of faith is complete (vs. Lagrange, ad loc.), it only needs to receive a better foundation.

^{page 399 note 2} The fact that Jesus calls him a true Israelite before his confession of faith is irrelevant. It is because he is a true Israelite that he confesses Jesus, it is because he confesses Jesus that he is a true Israelite.

^{page 399 note 3} On the relationship of the κ⋯σμος in John to the Jewish world, cf. Richardson, op. cit. pp. 182–4.

^{page 399 note 4} The article (⋯ διδ⋯σκαλος) should be given all its force. See the penetrating remark of Bultmann (p. 103, note 1): ‘in dir begegne ich dem Lehrertum Israels; du repräsentierst es’.

^{page 400 note 1} The obvious reason for this is that, in all cases, it is either Pilate who is speaking or the Jews who are speaking with Pilate. It is normal to find the term ᾽׀ονδαῑος and not ᾽׀σρα⋯λ used in such cases. However, whereas βασιλε⋯ς το⋯ ᾽;׀σρα⋯λ is found only in Matt. xxvii. 42 and Mark xv. 32, used in mockery by the Jews, John has both Nathanael and the ‘crowd’ acclaim Jesus as βασιλεὺς το⋯ ᾽׀σρα⋯λ. The use of βασιλεὺς τ⋯ν ᾽׀ουδα⋯ων in the Passion narrative assumes special significance in virtue of this previous usage.

^{page 400 note 2} In our opinion it seems arbitrary to maintain that what we have here is an opposition between a ‘political-national’ and an ‘eschatological’ or ‘spiritual’ understanding of Jesus' kingship and kingdom (vs. esp. p. 69 – repeating a common opinion). The idea is certainly present, but the theological intention of John goes beyond this.

^{page 400 note 3} The same may be said of the use of ᾽׀ονδαῖοσ at John vi. 41, 52; x. 31, 33; xi. 8, 54.

^{page 400 note 4} ‘Für das Evangelium ist Jesus nicht der König der Judäer…, sondern der König Israels’. Bornhäuser, op. cit. p. 148. The observation is correct, but we disagree with the meaning the author gives to ᾽׀ουδαῑος and ᾽׀σρα⋯λ.

^{page 400 note 5} Cf. Blank, art. cit., and I. de la Potterie, ‘Jésus roi et juge d'après Jn 19, 13’, Biblica XLI (1960), 217–47; esp. pp. 236–47.

^{page 400 note 6} Cf. Lagrange (ad xix. 14) in the light of Hoskyns, p. 525.

^{page 401 note 1} One would expect the inscription on the cross to read ‘The King of Israel’, but Pilate would have referred to Jesus as ‘The King of the Jews’ and John could not disregard the enormous weight of tradition on this point. However, he did bring out the universal significance of the title (ix. 20 c) and was careful to point out that it was not accepted by the Jews (xix. 20a, b, 21).

^{page 401 note 2} Cf. Grässer, art. cit. pp. 76–7.

^{page 401 note 3} Cf. especially Brown, op. cit. lxx f.; Martyn, J. L., History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (New York, 1968),passim.Google Scholar

^{page 402 note 1} On this point see: W. Schrage, art. ⋯ποσυν⋯γωγος, T.W.N.T. VII 845 ff.; esp. pp. 848–9.

^{page 402 note 2} Lütgert (art. cit.) has seen (as did Bornhäuser) that the term ᾽׀ουδαῑος is associated with a ‘religious’ attitude (faithfulness to the Law), but he has tried to reduce the term exclusively to this meaning and has overlooked the ethnic-geographical meaning of the term.

^{page 402 note 3} See G. von Rad and K. G. Kuhn, art. ᾽׀σρα⋯λ, T.W.N.T. III, 357 ff.

^{page 402 note 4} Kuhn, Ibid. 361–3.

^{page 402 note 5} Ibid. pp. 364, 39 ff.; 366, 6 ff.

^{page 403 note 1} Ibid. p. 363, 13–28.

^{page 403 note 2} ‘“People of God” in St John's Gospel?’, N.T.S. XVI (1969–70), 114–29.

^{page 403 note 3} Ibid. pp. 120–3; 126–9.

^{page 403 note 4} One could ask whether the ‘scattered children of God’ are not the ‘other sheep’, i.e. Diaspora Jews. This has been held by J. A. T. Robinson (art. cit., N.T.S. VI (1959–60), 128). In our view (art. cit. pp. 126 ff.), all those who believe are the ‘scattered children of God’. The correspondence between John xi. 50–2 and John X. 16 is therefore not perfect, since the ‘other sheep’ at X. 16 refers to Diaspora Jews. The Gentiles are in no way excluded either at xi. 50–2 or at X. 16, but we believe (with Robinson) that John is not thinking of them in explicit terms.

^{page 404 note 1} The distinction is not perfectly legitimate if one adopts the terms of reference of orthodox Judaism. We have used it in this study because it seems clear that John was forced to distinguish between Jews and ‘Jews’, between ‘children’ of Abraham and ‘descendants’ of Abraham (John viii. 37–41 – see n. 4 below).

^{page 404 note 2} The latter cannot be said to belong to a fold in the strict sense of the term. John avoids speaking explicitly of other folds or of Jesus ‘leading out’ the sheep who do not belong to the fold of metropolitan Judaism, even though it is quite possible that he may be thinking of them as belonging to other folds (the local synagogues of the Diaspora).

^{page 404 note 3} Cf. our article: ‘The Metamorphosis of a Legal Principle in the Fourth Gospel. A Closer Look at Jn 7, 51’, Biblica LIII (1972), 340–61, esp. pp. 348–50.

^{page 404 note 4} The same distinction is drawn by John at viii. 37 ff., where he distinguishes between the ‘descendants’ (σπ⋯ρμα) of Abraham and the ‘children’ (τ⋯κνα) of Abraham. The ‘Jews’ are not children of Abraham because they seek to kill Jesus, a man who speaks the ‘truth’ (revelation) he has heard from God. The children of Abraham (‘Israelites’ like Nathanael) are those who love Jesus and accept his ‘word’ (believe on him).

^{page 405 note 1} Art. cit. p. 153.

^{page 405 note 2} Richardson, op. cit. p. 186.

^{page 405 note 3} Contra Schweitzer, E. (‘The Concept of the Church in the Gospel and Epistle of St John’, NT Essays in mem. T. W. Manson (Manchester, 1959), pp. 230–45)Google Scholar

who states that ‘John does not describe the Church as the New Israel or as God's People…’.