^{page 96 note 1} Scobie, C. H. H., John the Baptist (1964)Google Scholar; Schütz, R., Johannes der Täufer (1967)Google Scholar; Wink, W., John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (1968).Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 2} Die urchristliche Überlieferung von Johannes dem Täufer (1911).

^{page 96 note 3} Das Urchristentum I. Johannes der Täufer (1932).

^{page 96 note 4} ‘Die Täufertradition bei Matthäus’, Bibl. Zeitschr. (1959), pp. 271 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 5} Still, it is surprising to see that Scobie did not even know of Trilling.

^{page 96 note 6} Which was quickly taken up by Wink.

^{page 97 note 1} It would be different if Ad. Merx were right with his assumption that the variant άλλ' άλλω in x. 41 is the original reading and refers to the Baptist. But at least the latter is doubtful.

Sy^s reads in Mark x. 40 άλλω δέ (for this retranslation see Burkitt, F. C., Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe, 1, 1904, 213n.)Google Scholar. The variant was discarded by Burkitt, and Dobschütz, E. v. (Nestle–v. Dobschütz, Einführung, pp. 4 f.Google Scholar), but taken seriously by Merx, , Markus und Lukas, p. 128Google Scholar, who interprets it as referring to ‘der Andere, der größte vom Weibe Geborene…Johannes’. The reading is, however, ambivalent. It may be understood as a dative of agent (cf. Thuc. 1. 46 έπειδή αύτοίς παρεσκεύαστο); see Blass-Debrunner, , Grammatik, § 191Google Scholar. If so άλλος has to be taken as a circumlocution for God.

^{page 97 note 2} Jos. Ant. § 18, 116 ff.

^{page 97 note 3} see Wohleb, L., Röm. Quartalschr. (1928), pp. 187 f., 191.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 4} Das Evangelium Marci ² (1909), S. 62 ff.; Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelium ² (1911), pp. 70 ff.

^{page 99 note 1} As he may have done in ii. 16 already.

^{page 99 note 2} Differently in Hauck, F., Das Evangelium des Markus (1931), p. 38Google Scholar: έρΧονται = Leute Kommen.

^{page 99 note 3} It might be different if Schille, G. were right in assuming the existence of a ‘baptistic’ stratum stretching from i. 23 to xii. 12Google Scholar (Anfänge der Kirche (1966), p. 210, 18). Ingenious as it is the attempt does not recommend itself by the presentation of any evidence.

^{page 99 note 4} As even A. v. Harnack, who was most conservative in his reconstruction of Q, postulates (Sprüche und Reden Jesu (1907), pp. 126, 128, (E.T. 1908), p. 254).

^{page 100 note 1} The description of the outward appearance is indicative (Matt. iii. 4; Luke vii. 25). Is it implied by this that the multitude saw the prophetic garment as prefiguration of a Messianic investiture? Is the saying on the βιάЗοντες to be linked with this?

^{page 100 note 2} In all probability deriving from Q.

^{page 100 note 3} ‘Darin besitzt Q ohne Zweifel einen historischen Vorzug, daß der Täufer auf einen nicht-christlichen Messias der Zukunft hinweist. Indessen ist damit doch die Weissagung auf Jesus als den christlichen Messias verbunden, und zwar nicht erst nachträglich, sondern schon in Q’ (Wellhausen, J., Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien ², p. 65Google Scholar). Cp. Goguel, M., Jean-Baptiste (1928), p. 42.Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 4} E. Meyer stresses rightly the fact that Matt. xi. 2 goes far beyond anything that is said in Mark (Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums, 1 (1921), 226).Google Scholar

^{page 100 note 5} Reflections on the possibilities and limitations of prophecy are typical for Q as Luke x. 73 f. shows.

^{page 101 note 1} The structure of the report we find in Ev. Ebion. seems to represent the Q form whereas Matthew carried out a thorough revision.

^{page 101 note 2} J. Wellhausen states rightly: ‘Obwohl die grossen Taten Jesu in Q nicht expliziert werden, werden sie doch höher gewertet als bei Markus’ (Einleitung.², 1911, p. 164).Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 3} SeeHarv. Theol. Rev. (1958), pp. 101 ff.

^{page 101 note 4} The closest parallel is Pes. r. 26 (p. 129a of the Friedberg edition, Wien, 1880). The passage is all the more relevant as the whole section is a nest of old material.

^{page 101 note 5} The Markan text (i. 6) is divided. The description in the majority of MSS is influenced by Matthew whereas the Western text, δέρριν καμήλον, a non-interpolation, seems to represent the older Markan text (cp. Kilpatrick, G. D., The Origins of the Gospel According to St Matthew (1950), p. 107)Google Scholar. If not based on Mark, Matt. iii. 4a, b could taken as composed by the evangelist.

^{page 101 note 6} It is certainly not a threat as WInk (p. 32) assumes.

^{page 101 note 7} Different in Trilling, op. cit. p. 286.

^{page 102 note 1} Cp. Mark vi. 15.

^{page 102 note 2} έпοίησαν aor. ingr.

^{page 102 note 3} The matter is only different in the wording of k, where it is claimed that the Elijah performed (fecit) the ἀпοκαπἀστασ in his way and where the question about the Son of Man is left unanswered. It may be that this interpreter had two persons in mind, one of whom was John the Baptist. Strictly speaking it would be true only for this text that it speaks in ‘absichtlicher Verschleierung’ and ‘Dunkeiheit’ of the Baptist, whereas this remark of Trilling (p. 279) is misleading in respect to the dominant text of the Markan passage.

^{page 102 note 4} Merx, A., Matthaus, pp. 254Google Scholar f., points to the sy^s reading according to which Elijah too (instead of ήδη) had come: the last precondition for the coming of the Messiah had been fulfilled.

^{page 102 note 5} It may be for this reason that the phrase was omitted by Matthew in xiv. 2.

^{page 102 note 6} These are passed over by Trilling, , loc. cit. pp. 279 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 102 note 7} Different in Wink, p. 31, following Trilling.

^{page 102 note 8} Cf. p. 104 n. 2.

^{page 103 note 1} The argument occurs already in the account of John's death (Matt. xiv. 3), the exposition of which may be independent from Mark.

^{page 103 note 2} The part of the Latin translation that reads quod non credidistis ei goes so far as to indicate that the refusal ofJesus was caused (quod= quia) by the refusal of John (or: ‘You did not repent because you did not believe’?).

^{page 103 note 3} The second αύτῷ is omitted by if¹, the third by c ff^1,2 g¹.

^{page 103 note 4} Was even the άυпεγων in v. 28 added in order to make it parallel to v. 33?

^{page 103 note 5} ff¹ renders it by cognovissetis. Rightly so, because it is the problem of insight (|ℸ⊔ωℶ) that is envisaged by this phrase.

^{page 104 note 1} The ύμεīς of xxi. 31 f. are still the same as had been addressed in xxi. 23.

^{page 104 note 2} It is to the credit of van Royen, P. D., Jezus en Johannes de Doper (Diss. Leiden, 1953)Google Scholar, to have ventilated a possible relation of the parable with the portrait of John in the Christian community. His own interpretation, however, that the beloved son is John, is presented without substantiation. Theophilus of Antiocheia already interprets Mark xii. 2 (unum decollaverunt) as referring to John (see Zahn, , Forschungen, II, 1883, 56Google Scholar and cf. the editor's note).

^{page 104 note 3} Thus Kilpatrick, p. 107.

^{page 104 note 4} Thus Trilling, pp. 282 ff.

^{page 104 note 5} Jones, J. L., Angl. Theol. Rev. (1959), pp. 298Google Scholar ff., tried to prove the opposite. It is his opinion that the gospel is coined by controversies between the church and the Baptist community; he goes even so far as to suggest that the story of Jesus' withdrawal after the death of John indicates a desire to deny the claim that Jesus had set up a competing community and that the death of John had opened the way for Jesus to establish his church.

^{page 105 note 1} Das Evangelium Lucae (1904), p. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 2} ‘Occident and Orient’, Festschrift M. Gaster (1936), p. 131: If these regulations forbid…to shed the blood of the gentiles for the sake of gain or plunder, it goes without saying that they allowed them to kill the gentiles in the legitimate war (bellum justum) for national independence, etc.

^{page 105 note 3} Eisler is, in some ways at least, preceded by Todd, J. C., The Expos. Times, XXI (1909/1910), 173 ff.Google Scholar, who assumes that Luke iii. 1–17 are quotations from ‘Logia of John’, followed by the summary of 18–20.

^{page 105 note 4} See Theol, . Wörterb. VI, 904Google Scholar ff. Cf. recently J. D. M. Derrett, Law in the New Testament (1970), p. 283.

^{page 105 note 5} Sermon 2 (Works, 1 [1781], 33). Cf. M. Luther: ‘die gewöhnlichen Gebote Gottes’ (E. Mülhaupt, D. Martin Luthers Evangelien = Auslegung, III (1953), 58.Google Scholar

^{page 105 note 6} Wellhausen, op. cit. p. 5.

^{page 106 note 1} Ant. § 18, 116 ff. Not less than four terms demand a political interpretation: ήρθησαν (for this reading and its meaning see Brandt, W., Die judischen Baptismen (1910), p. 145)Google Scholar, άποστάσις, νεώτερον, μεταβολή. Νεώτερα became term. techn. for every kind of insurrection in Roman Law.

^{page 106 note 2} Conzelmann, H., Die Mitle der Zeit (1954), p. 16Google Scholar (E. T. p. 24), claims that the omission of όπισω μον in iii. 16 implies the rejection of John's position as forerunner. But the words may have been omitted by Luke (and in Matt. iii. 11) because they are self-understood. Even with the phrase in question the sentence does not attribute any outstanding role to John.

^{page 106 note 3} iii. 15 seems to be such a summary. Λαός is Lukan, whereas διαλογιЗομένων πάντων έν ταίς καρδίαις αύτωῶν is rather pre-Lukan (cf. v. 21 with Mark ii. 6). Equally, iii. 18 is rather a summary than just an editorial padding.

^{page 106 note 4} vii. 18 is rather than to be taken as an archaic stylization of Luke than as Q material. The sending on of two disciples, although known from Jewish sources (see Jeremias, J., Abba (1966), pp. 132 ff.Google Scholar), is Lukan too, as x. 1 shows. κύριος is equally Lukan.

^{page 106 note 5} Thus Conzelmann, p. 17 (E. T. pp. 25 ff.; ‘perhaps influenced by the source’). All the elements of the passage find their parallel in Matthew. It is only the beginning of v. 29 (πᾶς ό λαός) which is suspect.

^{page 106 note 6} The fact that Luke does not omit Mark xii. 35 ff. could be raised against this opinion. This discussion piece was, however, very serviceable in times and circumstances where Son of David aroused political suspicion. It may be that Luke, coutrary to this practice, reproduced the verses for this reason. The idea of a suffering Messiah is to be found in Luke's own words in xxiv. 26.

^{page 107 note 1} The διηρόρει (v. 7) goes further than Mark vi. 14 and includes v. 14c. It is far-fetched to conclude from v. 8 (προϕής τις τῶν άρΧαιων) that Luke saw John as the last of the prophets.

^{page 107 note 2} If Luke had wanted to separate John's activity from Jesus's he ought to have placed iii. 19 f. after the baptism of Jesus or added something of the kind Justin supplied: John έπα¨σε after the baptism of the very one. A characterization of Conzelmann's theory that had gained some fame was attempted by Minear, P., Schubert-Festschrift, P. (1966), p. 122.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 3} See Daube, D., New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (1956), pp. 285 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 4} An attempt to do justice to the passage as a sequence of coherent thoughts is made in Harv. Theol. Rev. (1958), pp. 101 ff.

^{page 107 note 5} The reference to John is lacking in ℵ*. A tendency seems to emerge not to link Jesus too closely with a figure that had just passed away (cf. the omission of ίωάννην τόν βαпτιστην in Tatian, and Aucher-Mösinger, , Concordantia, p. 153)Google Scholar. The Latin side of D reads in Luke xi. 1: ‘sicut et Johanes docuit nos discipulos suos’; it thus conflates two readings, the first one of which is in agreement with Matt. xi. 14.

^{page 107 note 6} See T.U. 88 (1964), pp. 14 ff.

^{page 107 note 7} p. 67; cf. Wink, p. 59.

^{page 108 note 1} P. 68.

^{page 108 note 2} Vv. 15 f. and v. 17 are overlapping. Had they been separate entities originally?

^{page 108 note 3} See Merx, II, 2, 188 ff.

^{page 108 note 4} Very different in Protev. Jac. xxiii. 2 where Herod is supposed to have said: ό ¨ιòς αύτοῦ [ΖαΧαρίο¨] μέιιει βασιΙε¨ει ν τοῦ 'Ισραηλ.

^{page 108 note 5} Wink (p. 76) comes to a different opinion only because he wrongly interprets i. 76 ff. as referring to Jesus.

^{page 108 note 6} ii. 38; cf. the inscription on the coins issued by the Zealots of the second revolution ∏ (Ad. Reifenberg, , Ancient Jewish Coins, 1947, pp. 60ff.)Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 7} Lauretin, R., Structure et thέologie de Luc I-II, pp. 111 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 8} Cf. Vet. Test. (1957), pp. 381 ff.

^{page 108 note 9} Wink (p. 70) advances as an argument against this that any references to a community are lacking. That is true. But should we be entitled to expect this? Do ‘Christian’ passages give any more precise information about the Christian church?

^{page 108 note 10} This is especially true if the text form that reads v. 38 at the place where the textus receptus has v. 34b is accepted (cf. Z.R.G.G. (1970), pp. 277 f.

^{page 109 note 1} i. 43; apart from this instance referring to God.

^{page 109 note 2} In i. 14 said to be expressed by people. This is the normal usage (cf. Acts ii. 46; John v. 35). John is thus seen as an eschatological figure. But the position is different in v. 44.

^{page 109 note 3} Vv. 46–55, 68–75 are Wandergut, stray material.

^{page 109 note 4} In the present context at least put into the mouth of the Baptist.

^{page 109 note 5} Goethe's ‘das Wunder ist des Glaubens liebstes Kind’ would not have found the consent of the evangelist.

^{page 109 note 6} The establishment of any connection with the Ephesian tradition of Acts xix is, even if Ephesus should have been accepted as place of the redaction of the gospel, for this reason, subject to a certain degree of caution. W. Baldensperger's ideas in his pioneer work on the subject (Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums, 1898) have therefore to be taken with reservation.

^{page 109 note 7} Cf. the different view taken in iii. 32 and especially xii. 19.

^{page 109 note 8} See Miracles, ed. by C. F. D. Moule (1965), p. 199.

^{page 110 note 1} A reconstruction is attempted in Miracles, pp. 193 ff.

^{page 110 note 2} See Wilkens, W., Die Entstehungsgeschichte des vierten Evangeliums (1958)Google Scholar, on the concept of the Festreisen.

^{page 110 note 3} Thus E. Hänchen, p. 155.

^{page 110 note 4} The Paris MS reads ‘…ΣαΙήμ…και ποΙΙοι παρεγινοτο καì ΈβαπτíЗοντο’ (Thilo, J. A., Codex Apocryphus (N.T. 1832), p. 864)Google Scholar. This may be the older form of the text.

^{page 110 note 5} Not so v. 26 bπ.

^{page 110 note 6} A different view is taken by Wellhausen, J., Das Evangelium Johannis (1908), p. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 7} Osk. Holtzmann's emendation τών 'Igr;ησοῦ is to be accepted (Das Johannesevangelium (1887), p. 210: ‘Daß diese Lesart sich in keiner Handschrift findet, ist nicht zu verwundern. Man wollte später von einem Streite der beiden Schulen nichts wissen’).

^{page 110 note 8} Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (1963), p. 280.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 9} The ϕιλοι are addressed in Q (Luke xii. 4) and in the Farewell Discourse (John xv. 13 ff.).

^{page 110 note 10} See Nov. Test. (1970), p. 227, and cf. Gyllenberg, R., Bultmann-Festschrift (1954), pp. 144 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 11} The situation is in v. 36 more primitive than in v. 29: there we have a solemn proclamation; the reader (instead of Jesus) is addressed.

^{page 111 note 1} Dobschütz, E. V. (Z.N.W. (1929), p. 177)Google Scholar argued convincingly that the increasing brevity of the answers rendered by the Baptist reveals literary stylization.

^{page 111 note 2} F. Chr. Baur was the first to notice that Jesus was not baptized by John according to the Fourth Gospel (Kritische Untersuchungen über d. kanon. Evangelien (1847), pp. 105 ff.). This line of approach was developed by Meyer, E., Ursprung und Anfänge, 1 (1921), 90.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 3} In its christological tendency an elaboration of the motif of Matt. iii. 14.

^{page 111 note 4} It is typical for this presentation and the character of Z that Jesus is proclaimed as Son of Man and not as Son of God. The meaning became altered by the insertion of the Nathanael story. Nathanael was found sitting under a fig-tree (i. 48, 50). Similarly Jochanan ben Zakkai was sitting beneath an olive tree when preparing himself for mystical experiences (Chag. 14 b). Something similar may have to be assumed in the Nathanael story: he is told that he will see something in reality which he had been eager to experience by mystical means.

^{page 111 note 5} V. 51 a coincides substantially with Matt. iv. 11.

^{page 111 note 6} See Wellhausen, , op. cit. 26 ff., 108Google Scholar, who only unearths the first stratum beneath the redaction.

^{page 111 note 7} Differently in Wendt, H. H., Die Schichten im vierten Evangelium (1911), p. 76Google Scholar: Dobschütz, E. V., Z.N.W. (1929), p. 163Google Scholar; Bultmann, R., Das Johnnesevangelium, p. 199Google Scholar. For the secondary character of v. 34 see Wellhausen, ad loc. and Hirsch, E. (Studien zum vierten Evangelium, p. 57).Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 8} Dibelius, M., Die urchristliche Überlieferung, p. 114.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 9} Dodd, op. cit. p. 266, has recently again drawn attention to Sir 48. I where we find ϕῶς and λαμπάς in a parallelismus membrorum. He has done so, although O. F. Fritzsche had categorically denied any connection between John v. 35 and this passage: ‘grundverkehrt ist die Meinung, daß dort auf unsere Stelle Bezug genommen sei’ (Kurzgef. exeget. Handbuch, II (1859), 281 f.Google Scholar). Indeed, λαμπάς is different from λυχνός. But καιόμενος, known from Sir 48. 1, is present in our text (and only appended by ϕαίων); and this verb fits much better with λαμπνός than λυχνός. It may therefore be argued that the alternation of the text, which in any case has to be posited, reaches deeper than E. Schwartz (see the next note) assumed, in that not only πραν was transposed but λαμπάς replaced by the degrading term λυχνός (cf. the famous line in J. Scheffler's ‘…Ich will dich lieben’: ‘…ich liebte das geschaffne Licht’).

^{page 111 note 10} The transposition of πρός ώραν to the first line was suggested by Schwartz, E., Aporien im vierten Evangelium, IVGoogle Scholar, Nachr. d. Göttinger Ges. d. Wiss. (1908), pp. 521 f.

^{page 111 note 11} For the messianic meaning of άγαλλιααις see Luke xiv. 47, Acts xxvi. 46, and cf. E. Lohmeyer, op. cit. p. 29, n. 3.

^{page 112 note 1} Thus Wendt, op. cit. p. 76.

^{page 112 note 2} To be understood in analogy to i. 42.

^{page 112 note 3} The problem comes to the fore in iii. 26, iv. I.

^{page 112 note 4} This is the quintessence of x. 41.

^{page 112 note 5} Any scheme that was confined to two successive persons was bound to be influenced by the O.T. pattern, the succession of Elijah to Elisha. What is emphasized in Late Judaism (following the 0. T. reports) in the treatment of both figures is the observation that a greater measure - 16 as against 8 miracles, as Midr. ha-Gadol I. XIX calculates - of miraculous power was given to Elisha than to Elijah. We find an implied reference on Jesus' miracles in x. 41. True, the statement is predominantly coined by the problem of satisfactory qualification (see Miracles, pp. 188 ff.), but can it be excluded that Z, which portrays John in Elijanic colours, formulated the sentence with a sideglance at this pattern? That the new Elijah dispensed completely with miracles whereas Jesus' activity was marked by such works of power? The Jewish tradition likes to picture Jesus as another Gehazi (Sot 47 a; Sanh 107 b). Has this to be considered in this context? Is it to be taken as an answer to such Leitlinien of appreciation as are presupposed here?

^{page 112 note 6} The polemical elements, which were explored by Wrede, W. (Charakter und Tendenz des Johan-nesevangeliums, 1903)Google Scholar and which are to be taken as directed either against the Baptistic movement or against Jews, ‘die den Täufer gegen Jesus ausspielen mochte(n)’ (thus Dobschütz, E. v., Z.N.W. (1929), p. 171Google Scholar, following Wrede) represent the same level.

^{page 112 note 7} Did iv. 2, a statement that can be understood perfectly within a Jewish context, come in at this time?

^{page 113 note 1} Harnack, A. v., Dogmengeschichte I ⁴, p. 109.Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 2} Schäder, H. H. in Reitzenstein-Schäder, Studien zum antiken Synkretismus (1926)Google Scholar. It is to the advantage of this theory that it reckons with an open or cryptic allusion to John already in the Urprolog. It is only by this assumption that the position of the first actual reference to the Baptist can be explained: ‘das Rätsel welches sich darauf zuspitzt, daß der Täufer unversehens in die Ewigkeit hineinschneit’ (Wellhausen, op. cit. p. 8). Any attempt to attribute both references to John (i. 6, 8, 15) in their entirety to a redactionary stratu (thus Bultmann) fails to explain why the additions were made exactly where they are found. The same is true for the opposite theory put forward by Spitta, F. (Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu (1910), pp. 48 ff.Google Scholar) and recently revived by Robinson, J. A. T. (N.T.S. (1962/1963).Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 3} The basic stratum may have consisted of vv. 1, 2, 4 (without πῶν άνθρώπOhgr;ν), 5 (?), 6 (ήνχετο instead of έγένετο?; άνθρωпος reinterpretation of an original 'ενωσχ), 9a, b (without τό άλεθι$$$όν), 10a, c, II, 12, 14a (until ήμīν), 14c, 16.

^{page 113 note 4} xiii. 31, which is not directly connected with v. 30, seems to have its original setting after x. 40 (and instead of the Luken verse 41). x. 39a may be a pre-Lukan addition. The temporal ώς in xiii. 25 seems to be a Lukanism (Wilcox, M., The Semitisms of Acts (1965), p. 162Google Scholar) indicating in this way that the formula had contained something more (probably on the success or lack of success of the Baptist). παντί (τ$$$ λα$$$;) (xiii. 24) may equally be Lukan.

^{page 113 note 5} προκηρύσσειν = to proclaim publicly (see Rom. i. 4 var. lect. and, probably, Rom. i. 2, and cf. Liddell-Scott s.v. The position is different in Origen, c. Cels. II, 28 [προϕήταις…προκηρύζασι τά περì 'Ιησοῦ], where atemporal meaning is required by the context). The question whether John belongs to the old or the new aeon does not come in on this occasion. Still, the latter is more likely and Wink's position (p. XI, 6) seems to be more justified than Wilckens' (Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte (1961), pp. 101 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 113 note 6} xiii. 27 οί γάρ κατοικοῦντες έν 'λεροασαλημ Kgr;αλ οί άρχοντες αύτῶν the formulation is singular.

^{page 113 note 7} άγνοήσαντες, seen in conjunction with v. 27 end and v. 28, cannot be taken to be meant as an excuse (thus E. Haenchen, p. 352). It is different in iii. 17, where we find κατά άγνοιαν ( = $$$μШℶ; for the interpretation see Daube, D., T.U. LXXIX (1969), pp. 58 ff.Google Scholar) in a Lukan interpretation of a formula.

^{page 114 note 1} If so the sentence would have an apologetic acumen: it would be directed against those who had pointed to different statements made by John.

^{page 114 note 2} Cf. p. 107.

^{page 114 note 3} See Bousset, W., Die Evangeliencitate Justins des Märtyrers (1891), pp. 66 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 4} See p. 107.

^{page 114 note 5} For the diet of the Baptist see Grégoire, H., Byzantion, v, 109 f.Google Scholar; Andersen, F. I., Abr-Nahrain, III (1961/1962), 60 ffGoogle Scholar. and, recently, Brock, S., Or. Christ. LIV (1970), 113 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 6} Ev. Thomae, 104, has to be seen as a developed version of this scene; the baptism is replaced by praying and fasting.

^{page 115 note 1} Ir. Haer, I, 28, 6 (Harvey, I, 238).

^{page 115 note 2} L. E. Keck, in his valuable study (Suppl. to Numen, x (1965), 184 ff.), seems to be mistaken at this point, at least when he assumes (p. 193) that the Gnostics drew from nothing but the canonical gospels.

^{page 115 note 3} Act. Thomae 36 refers to the synoptic passage, which, however, is only used as a quarry; the pictorial phrase of those clothed in white garments is applied in quite a different way. It is a feature not dissimilar in character that Matt. iii. iois cited in thegospel of Philip, p. 131, i. 12 f., as a saying of the Logos.

^{page 115 note 4} The disciples state that the twenty-four prophets had spoken about Jesus (or ask a question whether this was so; this is linguistically not impossible and rendered more likely by the questions in saying 51 and 51–53 are certainly one entity). The answer castigates the disciples for being concerned about the dead and ignoring (dismissing, abandoning) the living one. This can barely be a reference to Jesus himself (thus i.a. Gärtner, B., The Theology of the Gospel of Thomas (1961), p. 156)Google Scholar, who had been approached by these very disciples. It is rather to be taken as a pointer to the message of the Baptist.

^{page 115 note 5} It had been assumed frequently that the word ‘metschōkjk’ (instead of ‘metschetschokjp’) is corrupt (e.g. B. Metzger in Aland's Synopsis). But mistakes like this one are frequent in Coptic manuscripts. We need not assume any more serious corruption.

^{page 115 note 6} Thus Gätner, p. 224. Gärtner fails to give an interpretation whereas Wilson, R. Mc. L. (Studies, p. 62)Google Scholar tries to establish a link with saying 22, the passage about the single eye: ‘eyes that are broken (or divided?) are not any longer single’.

^{page 116 note 1} He was taken πρός τό θεον (Jos. Ant. IV. 326). His eyes did not become dim (Lekach, Deut. xxxiv. 7; Ginzberg, L., Legends, IV, 164, n. 953).Google Scholar

^{page 116 note 2} Ginzberg, II, 116.

^{page 116 note 3} Ibid. p. 271.

^{page 116 note 4} The idea that Elijah–John, who was killed (Matt xvii. 12), is nevertheless active (Matt. xvii. 3) may be based on a similar concept.

^{page 116 note 5} Thus Johannesbuch, p. 94; Ginza R. 192 ff. It is significant that part of the Jewish tradition speaks of the grave of Moses, even of pilgrim journeys to the burial place (echa r. to I. 17), whereas other sources emphasize that the whole world is his grave (Ass. Mos. II. 8) or even that he was hidden away in order to return (Sharastani, Cureton, p. 165). This means that the idea of Moses' ascension did not impede narrations about his earthly whereabouts. Similarly, the story about John's beheading did not deter from speculation about his ascension.

^{page 116 note 6} Which is, of course, often recounted in Early Christian tradition. Has the Garshuni life of John (ed. by Mingana, A., Woodbroke Studies, I (1927), pp. 235 ff.Google Scholar), which describes the flight of John's head through the air and the continuous accusation uttered by it for fifteen years (p. 253), to be seen as a combination of this tradition with a picture more akin to that of Ev. Thom. 46?

^{page 116 note 7} E. g. Frend, W. H. C., J. Th. St. (1967), pp. 13 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 116 note 8} Details will be communicated by A. Böhlig.

^{page 116 note 9} See Hilgenfeld, A., Die clementinischen Recognitionen und Homilien nach ihrem Ursprung und Inhalt dargestellt (1848), S. 75 f.Google Scholar; Schöps, H. J., Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums (1949), S. 436Google Scholar; Strecker, G., Das Judenchristentum in den Pseudoklementinen (1958), pp. 236 f.; cf. 41, 265Google Scholar (taken over from the AJ II source into the Grundschrift).

^{page 116 note 10} Of course not a Verschlimmbesserung for Jonathan as has been suggested by Hilgenfeld, p. 75.

^{page 116 note 11} It is at this that the argumentation of the context aims. The same argument is raised as a blow against heretical views, as I John v. 16 f. shows.

^{page 117 note 1} See Stud. Theol. xv (1961), 81 ff.

^{page 117 note 2} Cf. the hostile disposition towards the Baptist in the Cathar movement (Ig. Döllinger, v., Beiträge zur Sectengeschichte im Mittelalter, II (1890), 34, 65, 90, 155, 267, 283, 294, 375).Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 3} Cf. Protev. Jac. viii. 3; xxiv. 1 f., 4, where his father is raised to the position of a high priest.

^{page 117 note 4} Gospel of the Ebionites frr. 4 and 6; Ps.-Clem. Rec. I. 64; Hom. 2, 16. 7; 3, 51; Diognet 1 and 3; syr. Didascalia passim. Cf. the anti-cultic attitude of Elchasai (Hier. Haer. 19. 3) and of the Mandaeans (Ginza 1. 31; II. 1. 104 f.). See also Strecker, pp. 180 ff.

^{page 117 note 5} See Z.A.W. (1959), p. 268.

^{page 117 note 6} See Z.A.W. (1959), p. 268.

^{page 117 note 7} After Frankenberg. The Latin version reads ‘magni’, a misreading (see Rehm ad loc.) or even the result of an interpretation. The Syriac claims that the disciples hold that John is έν άποκρύϕό (that means, in a waiting position), whereas the Latin reads ‘magistrum suum velut Christum praedicarunt’ (54, 8). There is no doubt that the Syriac text with its strange concept is superior to the Latin. It seems that the latter was streamlined in accordance with a standard-type christology and equally with the claim of I. 60. I. Similarly Vigilius of Thapsus, Contra Arium Sabellium Photinum, c. 20 (Reitzenstein, Vorgeschichte, p. 60).

^{page 117 note 8} Strecker, pp. 189 f.

^{page 117 note 9} John is called ήμεροβαπτιοτής; that means, it is admitted that he practised baptism and only his rite and application is castigated. In Rec. II. 2 he is named ‘Johannes baptista’.

^{page 117 note 10} For the origin of the chapter see Strecker, pp. 46, 243.

^{page 118 note 1} Emphasized by Strecker, p. 242; cf. p. 221.

^{page 118 note 2} The type of Christianity that stands behind the Pseudoclementine literature seems to have had no picture of its own of the Baptist and was therefore inclined to accept the linkage John-Simon which had been claimed by the opponents and which was only supplemented by a negative label. The picture of John's activity coincides in some ways with that of Josephus. It is admitted that he practised baptism (Rec. II. 8; Hom. II. 23) but he is criticized by implication, and the proclamation of baptism by Jesus is emphasized instead. It follows that in both cases baptism is seen as a mere lavation.

^{page 118 note 3} This is achieved by a transposition of the last and penultimate phrase of Matt. iii. 12; the burning of the chaff is transformed thereby into a step in the process of the gathering in.

^{page 118 note 4} Ch. 123 f.

^{page 118 note 5} Ch. 135.

^{page 118 note 6} See Schmidt, C., Pistis Sophia (1925), pp. xl ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 119 note 1} Ch. 62.

^{page 119 note 2} Ch. 7.

^{page 119 note 3} There is no direct evidence that Papias mentioned John in his Oracles of the Lord. But apart from the information he boasts to have gathered about the teaching of the Lord's disciples he names Aristion and the presbyter John with whom he had had direct contact (λέγουσιν) and characterizes them as 'Iagcr;ωαννου μαθηται (according to the conjecture proposed by Larfeld, W., Byz.-neugriech. Jbb. 1922, pp. 282ff.Google Scholar). This cannot mean ‘disciples of the apostle John’ (thus Larfeld himself) because the two are differentiated in the following way: only ‘John’ is a presbyter – that means a disciple of the disciples – whereas Aristion is left without any title and thus does not fit at all into the scheme of succession and tradition from the disciples to the informants that is applied by Papias. The phrase in all likelihood means ‘disciples of the Baptist’ (Bauer, cf. W., Johannesevangelium, 1933, p. 16Google Scholar and RGG³ s.v. Papias). As Eusebius explicitly mentions (H.E. III. 39. 14) special traditions handed down in the name of Aristion and John it is likely that material on the Baptist was included. This would fit in with the Judaeo-Christian colours that are so obvious in the Papianic fragments. On the other hand, the statement attributed to Papias by the excerpt claiming that John was killed by the Jews which was linked with the fate of the Baptist by Zahn, Th. (Forschungen, VI, 150 f.Google Scholar) should rather be left aside.

^{page 119 note 4} As indeed it was maintained in certain circles that John was without sins (Goldziher, I., Vorlesungen über den Islam (1910), p. 221).Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 5} The problem involved was hotly discussed in the early church. It takes the form of the discussion about the efficacy of John's baptism. Cyril, for example, was still inclined to concede the power of forgiving sins to John's baptism, whereas, under the influence of the Latin fathers (Tertullian, Pat. 3; Bapt. 10), the victory was eventually won by those opinions which emphasized the difference (material in Innitzer, pp. 209 ff.). The decision of Trent sums up the debate: ‘is quis dixerit, baptismum Joannis habuisse eandem vim cum baptismo Christi Anathema sit’ (Denzinger, no. 857).

^{page 120 note 1} ‘…postea Christus baptizavit Johannem, quamvis in secretioribus libris manifeste hoc scriptum sit’ (MPG 56, 658). One version of the Protev. Jac. goes far beyond this; it claims that the child Jesus baptized John and his father, who was resurrected for the occasion (Innitzer, p. 133). The beginning of this tendency to tone down the baptism of Jesus is noticeable already in Tatian, who maintains that Jesus took the Baptist's hand and placed it over his own head (Aucher-Mösinger, , Evangelii concordantis expositio (1876), pp. 41 f.Google Scholar).

^{page 120 note 2} See T.U.,93, p. 58.

^{page 120 note 3} John is not, as it is the case in Matthew, the Elijah rediturus but only by God endowed with the spirit of Elijah (Dial. 49. 7). Sy^cu omits δύο in John i. 37, 40. Does the translator want to imply in this way that all the pupils of John turned to Jesus? For a different interpretation see Baethgen, F., Evangelienfragmente (1885), p. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 4} Dial. 51. 2.

^{page 120 note 5} See T.U. 93, pp. 53 ff.

^{page 120 note 6} Aucher-Mösinger, pp. 49 f.

^{page 120 note 7} Ibid. p. 151; Leloir, L., St Èphrem, Commentaire (1963), p. 111.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 8} ‘Divina enim natura baptismo non indigebat’ (Aucher-Mösinger, p. 41).

^{page 120 note 9} Aucher-Mösinger, p. 103; cf., Ps. Clem., Hom. 2, 17.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 10} Ancher-Mösinger, p. 107; Leloir, p. 33.

^{page 120 note 11} Aucher-Mösinger, pp. 99 f.

^{page 120 note 12} …‘ut enim discipulos Joannis praemoneret’ (Aucher-Mösinger, p. 100). Ephraem adds in John i. 37 ‘alii discipuli’ (Aucher-Mösinger, p. 99; Leloir, L., Commentaire, 1966, p. 170Google Scholar), implying in this way that, apart from the two mentioned in the preceding verse, some more disciples went over to Jesus.

^{page 120 note 13} Typical is Or. Sib. I. 336–43. Some more information is given in the Garshumic and Arabic version of the Tiburtine Sibylla edited by Schleifer, J., Denkschr. d. Kaiserl. Akad. d. Wiss. Wien, LIII (1910), 59Google Scholar: the baptism of Jesus is mentioned and the witness given by John stating the divine character of Jesus is emphasized.

^{page 121 note 1} Protev. Jac. 22. 3 (cf. the additions cited by Tischendorf, Evangelia Apocrypha, pp. 43 f.). The passage may have been originally part of a narrative dealing exclusively with the Johannine stories (thus Berendts, A., Studien über Zacharias-Apokryphen (1895), pp. 24 ff., 109Google Scholar (thesis); Haase, F., Literarkritische Unterscuhungen (1913), pp. 56 f.Google Scholar; differently de Strycker, E., La Forme la plus ancienne du Protévangile de Jacques (1961), pp. 400 f.Google Scholar). Cf. Origen, Hom. in I Reg 28. The same story is to be found in Schatzhöhle, 47, 14 ff.

^{page 121 note 2} Miracula, St Eustathii (C.S.C.O. xxi, 1, p. 78).Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 3} P.O. IX, 135 ff.; John follows the messengers of Herod only after having finished his task (cf. Luke xiii. 32).

^{page 121 note 4} P.O. I, 419: when the Jews failed to rebuild the temple during the time of Julian they were told that their failure was due to the presence of the bones ot the Christians still buried on the site. They therefore dug up and threw out the bones of Elijah and John the Baptist (cf. the text publ. by Budge, E. A.W., The Martyrdom of St Mercurius the General (1915), pp. 245–7)Google Scholar. For other reasons given by Christian writers see the material assembled by Vogt, Jos., Kaiser Julian u.d. Judentum (1939), pp. 54–6.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 5} Hofmann, R. A., Das Leben Jesu nach den Apokryphen (1851), p. 418.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 6} ‘In ipso sepulchro fortis fuit praeco ut olim in utero matris, qui est imago sepulchri’ (Aucher-Mösinger, p. 50); Ev. Nikod. XVIII f. The Serbian Narratio de Antichristo contains i.a. a petition of John the Baptist and Mary for the condemned souls (see Kozak, E., Jahrbb. f. prot. Theol. (1892), p. 154)Google Scholar. Cf. Schmidt, ., Die Gespräche Jesu mit seinen Jügern (1919), pp. 507, 541, 574Google Scholar and the material cited there.

^{page 121 note 7} See Appendix II; cf. Goethe's line: ‘nun deutet er in den himmlischen Auen’.

^{page 121 note 8} Defended already by Origen; cf. Berendts, pp. 24 ff.

^{page 121 note 9} It is typical that, at least in part of the tradition, the priests of the temple are seen as involved in the murder of Zachariah.

^{page 121 note 10} The Christian Hegesippus, on the other hand - a work that does not recount such stories on the youth of the Baptist - emphasizes the consequences of his execution for the fate of temple and nation.

^{page 121 note 11} This is even more evident in the chronicles that cite from these legends.

^{page 121 note 12} John is most prominent in liturgy and legends of the Coptic church. For literary material see Miracles (ed. C. F. D. Moule, 1965), p. 185, n. 5. The library of the monastery of Amba Lijah contained even a ‘collection of the speeches of Apa John the Baptist’ (Recueil des travaux relat. é la phil…égypt. et assyr. XI (1889), p. 135).

^{page 121 note 13} Ardaus, Th., L'Orient syrien, III (1958), pp. 429 ff.Google Scholar; Tomajean, J., loc. cit. VI (1961), pp. 309 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 14} An investigation into the Vita Johannis published in P.O. Iv, p. 540, may be promising.

^{page 122 note 1} Most interesting is the comparatively large amount of space given to John in the Heliand. The author likes ‘godes ambahtman’ (2699) and ‘thiodgumon’ (2783). He insists on his inferiority but calls him ‘unsundigane’ (2722) –the similar term ‘unsculdigna’ (3086) is used for Christ – and the section 33, where he deals with John, has, as had been pointed out by Rathofer, J., Der Heliand (1962), pp. 368 ff.Google Scholar, a special position in the architectonic construction of the author. It seems to be due to this portrait of John that he became the Spezialheilige of the Ludolfingian imperial house (cf. Lippelt, H., Dietmar von Merseburg, Diss. Phil. Göttingen, 1966).Google Scholar

^{page 122 note 2} Kimchi, D. (Milchameth Hobah 16Google Scholara/b), who emphasized with reference to Matt. xi. 1 ff. that John first believed in Jesus but later when arrested did not, may not have been too far off the mark. But his own views are in fact rather based on a version of the Toledoth Jeshu than on Matt. xi.

^{page 123 note 1} See Th. W. VI, 907, n. 212.

^{page 123 note 2} The Q speech is only loosely linked with the question of the Baptist (especially in sy^s of Matt. xi.7). The speech, at least the beginning of it, with its allusions to the pilgrimage into the desert, would find its most natural location on the occasion of a similar event. Did the compiler of Q have such a location in mind? The desert features are less marked in John v. But ch. 5 follows after the desert scene of ch. 6, as had been pointed out by J. Jeremias and R. Bultmann, and this fragment of tradition had perhaps its original place even nearer to the feeding story. Was this the place of Jesus' speech on John in the oldest traceable tradition?

^{page 123 note 3} For an interpretation of the idea see Stauffer, E., Dodd-Festschrift (1956, pp. 281 ff.Google Scholar).

^{page 124 note 1} The only parallel is the variant in v. 19, possibly the original reading.

^{page 124 note 2} The opposite view is held by Bultmann, R., Tradition, p. 275Google Scholar, etc.

^{page 124 note 3} Sir xlix. 14: καί γάπ κτλ. probably referring back to xlviii. 9; cf. V. Ryssel (in Kautzsch) ad locum. Enoch himself is invested with characteristics of Elijah in En. lxx. 2: he ascends on a chariot.

^{page 124 note 4} It is for his reason that they are mentioned again in Luke xiii. 28.

^{page 124 note 5} Luke xiii. 34 is more definite than v. 35 is.

^{page 124 note 6} Behold, lo they laughed at him saying: how he curls his locks… they laughed at him saying: behold, how baldheaded he is.

^{page 124 note 7} Pre-Christian usage as in Mark vi.30.

^{page 125 note 1} John i, with its three appearances of hte λόγος, stands half-way between these concepts.

^{page 125 note 2} Bar. iii. 28; cf. Eth. En. 42.

^{page 125 note 3} According to Justin, Dial. 49, the Messiah has no knowledge of his character (έαυτόν...έπίστατεί) before the anointer reveals him (ϕανερόν...ποιήση). It is different in John i. 31 (cf. 26a, μέσος κτλ), where the Baptist himself does not know him and where his action is not meant to be a selection on his part.

^{page 125 note 4} Cf. John xvi. 7.

^{page 125 note 5} Made possible by the division between soul and body which became the accepted concept in several corners of Late Judaism; Schlatter, cf. A., Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josefus (1932), pp. 259. ff.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 6} It is for this reason that they both appear in the transfiguration story.

^{page 125 note 7} Ch. 44, 16 (μετετέθη) and 49, 14(άνελήμϕθη). The interpretation Gen. v. 24 receives in the LXX goes far beyond the wording of the Masoretic text: μετέθηκεν αύτόν ό θεός. (Cf. Sap. iv., 10) It is interesting to notice that , Gen.r. ad 5. 24Google Scholar, on the other hand, denies the idea that Enoch was translated without having died.

^{page 126 note 1} Einleitung, p. 137.

^{page 126 note 2} See p. 108. The other question, whether some Dominical sayings had been utterances of the Baptist originally, demands further scrutiny. Luke xii. 49 would be such a case in point.

^{page 126 note 3} Sitzsber. d. Preuss. Akad. (1931), pp. 313 ff. = Kleine Schriften, I (1958), 124 ff.

^{page 126 note 4} SeeOrientalia (1963), pp. 220 ff., and Macuch, cf. R., Th.L.Z. (1965), col. 649 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 126 note 5} See J.Th.St. (1968), pp. 211 f.

^{page 126 note 6} Vitae Prophetarum (Schermann, T.U. 31, 3, p. 115).

^{page 126 note 7} Mark iii. 21 ff. The scene was probably recounted in Q as well; see J. Th. St. (1971), pp. 192 ff.

^{page 127 note 1} Ign., v. Döllinger, Beiträge zur Sectengeschtichte im Mittelater (1890), II. 91; cp. I. 176.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 2} ‘It is also (recorded) in some of the books that Jesus son of Mary met John son of Zebedee and John smiled at him. Jesus said to him: Verily you smile with the smile of one who feels secure. John said to him: Verily you frown with the frown of one in despair. Then God gave a revelation to Jesus: that which John does is preferable to me’ (Asin 121; Patr. Or. XIX. 4).

^{page 127 note 3} Rec. I. 40. 2; the Syriac has a more general formulation. Hilgenfeld (p. 66) thinks that οινοποτης was omitted because these Christians did not drink wine themselves (equally Schoeps, p. 104). But their asceticism was much more rigorous (see Hom. xii. 6 and cp. Uhlhorn, G., Die Homilien und Recognitionen (1854), p. 219)Google Scholar. Nothing could have stopped them repeating Matt. xi. 19b β (τελωνωῶνκτλ.) if they just wanted to reproduce what was in keeping with their own persuasion. On the other hand, the Chinese text (see the following note) may, in fact, claim something for the Pharisees the Nestorians kept away from themselves. The apophthegm may be an offshoot of an early comparison between the two.

^{page 127 note 4} Saeki, P. Y., The Nestorian Documents and Relics in China ² (1951), p. 143Google Scholar (v. 182).

^{page 127 note 5} The formulation is a chosen one: ηέλέσαμεμ is taken up not before v. 34, whereas 32 b π finds its equivalent in v. 33. The structure is chiastic (different from vv. 29 f.). The actions are thereby emphasized.

^{page 127 note 6} As is the case with Elisha, whose baldheadedness is mentioned already in II Kings ii. 23.

^{page 127 note 7} A Paris fragment of the text was edited and translated by Winstedt, E. O., J. Th. St. (1907), pp. 240 ffGoogle Scholar. The full text (after a London MS) was published and translated by Budge, E. A. W., Coptic Apocrypha (1913), pp. 128 ff. and 335 ffGoogle Scholar. A new and improved translation was supplied by Till, W. C., Mitteilungen d. Dt. Arch. Inst. Abtlg Kairo, XVI, 2 (1958), 322 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 127 note 8} P. 11 b (Budge).

^{page 128 note 1} Even more strikingly expressed in the Winstedt text (p. 117v): James swears an oath testifying to the unique character of this heaven.

^{page 128 note 2} For a very different reformulation of the parable see Abd al-Jabbar, transl. by Pines, S., Proc. Isr. Acad. (1966), p. 7Google Scholar. A collation of relevant material is undertaken by Wikenhauser, A., Bibl. Zeitschr. (1932), pp. 366Google Scholar ff. Cf. p. 15 b, where reference is made to I Cor. ii. 9: ‘...who love him and love his friend and relative John’.

^{page 128 note 3} See Budge, pp. lxx ff.

^{page 128 note 4} J. Th. St. (1914), p. 129.

^{page 128 note 5} Cf. The Second Ep. of James, p. 56. 16 (Böhilg, p. 78).Google Scholar

^{page 128 note 6} See p. 14a, b (Budge).

^{page 128 note 7} Paradise is still located on earth in Jubiles.

^{page 128 note 8} P. 10 b.