^{page 130 note 1} The Fourth Gospel and Jewish Worship (Oxford, 1960), p. 93. Since the author does not use her married name it may be convenient to refer to both author and book as ‘A.G.’

^{page 131 note 1} J.B.L. LXXIX (1960), 315–27.

^{page 131 note 2} Ibid. p. 316.

^{page 131 note 3} See Bacon, B. W.Google Scholar, ‘After Three Days’, H.T.R. vm (1915), 99 f.

^{page 131 note 4} See Riesenfeld, H., Jésus Transfiguré (Copenhagen, 1947). In addition to the Exkurs in S.-B., vol. 11, information on the feast can be found in the article by H. G. Friedman in Jewish Ency. vol. ix.Google Scholar

^{page 132 note 1} Quotations are from the R.S.V. (‘John’ for the evangelist implies no theory of authorship.)

^{page 132 note 2} A.G. included vii. 53-viii. 11, pp. 110–12. Whether chapter ix was originally a part of the Tabernacles complex or only an expansion depends much more on theories of structure than upon motif. Not only the theme of light after darkness but that of opposition and escape are continuous. It may be intended as a transition to the Dedication in x. 22, where light again is the obvious theme. Verse 24, ‘how long’, suggests a stay in Jerusalem that embraced the two festivals and in any event the ritual of Dedication was an outgrowth of that of Tabernacles. Hence, except for vii. 53-viii. 11, common festival themes hold everything together from vii. 1 to x. 40. On the arrangement of themes see Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953), especially pp. 347 f., and, on chapters ix and x, p. 355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarIt is interesting to note that MacGregor, G. H. C. and Morton, A. Q. in their study, The Structure of the Fourth Gospel (Edinburgh, 1961) assign chapter ix to ‘J 2’, while vii. 1–52; viii. 12–59 are assigned to ‘J 1’ with very considerable revisions of order postulated (pp. 108 ff.). The ‘original order’ suggested brings together the dramatic action but does little to illuminate the teaching in relation to the festival. The liturgical transitions involved from Tishri to Passover I suggest may ultimately have something to do with the order in which we find the Fourth Gospel.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 1} Sanders, J. N. used this expression, for example, ‘Thus it was Irenaeus who established the form of the kerygma found in the Fourth Gospel as normative for Catholic theology’ (The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church (Cambridge, 1943), p. 84).Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 2} Ibid. pp. 41 f.

^{page 133 note 3} Dodd, , Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 347 f.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 4} Lightfoot, R. H. in St John's Gospel (Oxford, 1956), p. 176, notes the anticipation of events and their constant relation to Jesus' death and resurrection.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 1} A.G. pp. 1, 53 ff.

^{page 134 note 2} Lightfoot, , St John's Gospel, p. 148. For a cogent explanation of the phrase, ‘a feast of the Jews’Google Scholar, see Robinson, J. A. T., ‘The Destination and Purpose of St John's Gospel’, in Twelve New Testament Studies (Studies in Biblical Theology, no. 34), p. 123.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 3} J.B.L. LXXIX (1960), 325.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 4} Mark i. 14 we are no longer able to place and i. 32; iv. 35 have no definite antecedents.

^{page 134 note 5} Bacon, (H.T.R. viii (1915), 99 f.) suggested that a liturgical influence had imposed a six-day scheme (akin to Exod. xii. 3) alike on the Markan complex from the Confession of Peter to the Transfiguration and the passages leading to the manifestation of Jesus to his disciples in John (i. 19-ii. 11). The anointing at Bethany in John xii. 1 ff. six days before the Passover he held to be a schematic date and the six-day scheme of ‘Holy Week’ to have been imposed on Mark.Google Scholar

^{page 134 note 6} Cf. also Lightfoot, , St John's Gospel, p. 176.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 1} Barrett, C. K., The Gospel according to St John (London, 1955), p. 261. The seventh day was normally accounted the ‘great day’, not the added octave dayGoogle Scholar; see Thackeray, H. St John, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship (London, 1921), p. 66.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 2} John's ‘six days before the passover’ at xii. i might suggest he took Mark's scheme beginning with the Entry to be a ‘Holy Week’ and if so, this may give us a clue as to when it was so understood and so a terminus for the fig-tree ‘gloss’. Mark's date for the anointing, however, is apparently two days before Passover and certainly after the Entry. John's placing has more to do with his interest in Jesus as the Lamb of God than with chronology as such. On the liturgical clues see Bacon, (H.T.R. viii (1915), 99 f.)Google Scholar followed by McArthur, A. A., The Evolution of the Christian year (Greenwich, Conn., 1953), p. 85.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 3} Barrett, , The Gospel according to St John, p. 225.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 1} An appropriate place for the pericope adulterae as a conflict story apart from its more Lukan textual characteristics. C. H. Dodd lists the impressive number of references to a plot (Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 346 f.).

^{page 137 note 1} Gardner-Smith, P., Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge, 1938), pp. 90 f.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 2} Ibid. p. 92.

^{page 137 note 3} Ibid. p. 90.

^{page 137 note 4} Ibid. p. 40.

^{page 137 note 5} Ibid. pp. 36 ff.

^{page 137 note 6} Ibid. p. 38. Should not the question of the Law (ix. 22 f.) lead us to ask, Is this the sort of argument Jesus uses? rather than, Is there any parallel?

^{page 138 note 1} Cf. my article, J.B.L. LXXIX (1960), p. 323.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 2} Gardner-Smith, , Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels, pp. 38 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 3} Peter's declaration here is so ambiguous that ‘the parallels’ have had to modify it. Mark makes clear the difference between Peter's view and Jesus' and for Mark's Jesus Messiahship is something to be reticent about until death can reveal its meaning.

^{page 138 note 4} Gardner-Smith, , Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels, p. 39, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 1} Ibid. p. 39.

^{page 139 note 2} Of John viii. 59 Gardner-Smith says (p. 40) there is an ‘echo’ of Luke iv. 29, but ‘there is no indication that John had read the Lucan passage’. Since all the circumstances are different and there is no verbal similarity, discussion should revolve around what basis there was in the common tradition for Jesus' close escape, wherever it was. Bacon's proposal (H.T.R. viii (1915), pp. 106 f.) that John is deliberately an Epiphany Gospel as opposed to the Nativity Gospels and that this reflects early liturgical struggles is highly probable. He says, ‘The Fourth Gospel…remains true to the primitive sense of the Markan tradition. It ignores the birth stories, and treats “the beginning of the gospel” as a Manifestation…’(p. 109).Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 3} Similar comments could be made on Gardner-Smith's treatment of Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman. Luke often affords a point of transition as when the Syrophoenician woman of Mark-Matthew (one of two cases of healing at a distance) becomes a Samaritan theme where the Samaritans (in Acts, Samaria) represent the world beyond Jewry and are an apologia for the Gentile Mission. In John the Samaritan woman, Nicodemus or the blind man of chapter ix are not particular people taken over from the Synoptics but typical cases built out of several Synoptic instances and show how very well John knew the earlier Gospels. He has brilliantly carried forward and unified what the Synoptics began when they used recollections of actual incidents as a means of expressing Jesus' mission and significance.

^{page 140 note 1} Gardner-Smith, , Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels, p. 96.Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 2} See the discussion in Stendahl, K., The School of Matthew (Uppsala, 1954)Google Scholar

^{page 140 note 3} The Gospel according to St John, p. 15.

^{page 140 note 4} ‘How did John use his Sources?’, J.B.L. LXXIII (1954), pp. 73 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 1} The ma'amad provided opportunity for the reading of lections not only for the lay deputation which attended the Temple but also for its counterpart at home (see, for example, Moore, G. F., Judaism (Cambridge, Mass., 1927), 11, 12 f.).Google Scholar

^{page 141 note 2} A.G. p. 57 refers to the ‘Evangelist's theme that for the Christian all the Jewish feasts are fulfilled in the Passover, their only primitive annual feast (though represented by every Lord's Day), and that the Christian eucharist, though it primarily fulfils Passover, is also the recapitulation of the whole Jewish festal system’.

^{page 141 note 3} The liturgical background of the Psalms was helpful (see Thackeray, , The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, pp. 67–76) and perhaps at a deeper level the ani-hu (έγώ ε⋯μι) as suggested by Dr Dodd (Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 350).Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 1} Theodor, J. in Jewish Ency. vol. vii, says of Midrash Haggadah, ‘in a narrower sense it denotes the exegetical amplification of a Biblical passage and the development of a new thought based there-upon’. The whole article is interesting in describing the variety of midrashim. While the free use of the text is indicated (see quotations from G. V. Zunz), the peculiar nature of the Gospel tradition demands a new treatment. While I suggest the analogy lies in this field there is no actual precedent in any one kind of midrash for the methods of the Fourth Evangelist.Google Scholar

^{page 142 note 2} One can agree with A.G. (p. 57), ‘… this would point to the development of a Christian liturgy designed at first to supplement the liturgy of the synagogue, and finally, as the rift with Judaism widened, to take its place. This is by no means to suggest that St John intended his Gospel to be read, snippet by snippet, in a three-year lectionary cycle, since, to go no further into the matter, the long discourses do not lend themselves to such a treatment. But he may well have wished to provide sermons for the great occasions of the Christian year which would in fact be Christian commentaries on the relevant Old Testament lections of the triennial cycle.’ It is possible that this might apply more particularly to the festal haphtaroth than to the sedarim since it was from the former that homiletical midrash normally took its rise.

^{page 143 note 1} Here note D. Daube's discussion of the haggadic principle, ‘There is no before and after in Scripture’ (The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), p. 408) a solution of which he says, ‘Nowadays discrepancies are eliminated by the methods of modern criticism…none of these solutions was open to the Rabbis’ (p. 410). ‘Here we are interested in those alterations which an author deliberately makes although he has no reason to doubt the accuracy of his source’ (p. 406). Even in Hellenistic writing, ‘chronological arrangement was only one of many possibilities’ (p. 416).

^{page 143 note 2} St John's Gospel, p. 182. Cf. the similar remark of Thackeray, The Septuagint and Jewish Worship, p. 65.

^{page 143 note 3} On A.G.'s basis of recapitulation, for example, p. 49.

^{page 143 note 4} Of the three ancient feasts, only Pentecost appears in none of the Gospels. In A.G.'s scheme it is in a different category from the rest (pp. 53, 72, 220 ff.). In addition to Passover and Tabernacles the Fourth Gospel mentions Dedication and another feast which may be the New Year, while the Synoptics concentrate on Passover and do not mention Tabernacles explicitly. John deals with the Christian theme of Pentecost (the Holy Spirit) but makes it anticipatory of the Passion, a problem for any lectional scheme. In the Christian scheme only Passover figures largely and at an early date. The Christian Pentecost is wholly dependent on Acts, whereas Tabernacles had no Luke. A.G. finds support for the Johannine appendix (chapter xxi) in the lections of the Pentecost-midsummer cycle.

^{page 144 note 1} I do not mean to suggest that the eschatological motifs of the festival were exhausted any more than were those of Passover, but that there is a real anticipation here of the final reality there.

^{page 144 note 2} Pp. 212 f.

^{page 144 note 3} Of the distribution of the lections under two possible cycles A.G. says, ‘The question must await a fuller examination of St John's relation to a Tishri cycle’ (p. 214, n. 1 ). Bacon had already noted the function of the early chapters of John as an ‘Epiphany Gospel’ and a possible relation to the Julian New Year. The Nisan cycle with its beginning in Genesis (‘Let there be light’) and its six days of creation culminating in the Sabbath, would be more appropriate than the Tishri cycle and lead up to the Tabernacles theme of the Lord coming to (or replacing) the Temple. Bacon says, ‘Finally, Epiphany as the “first feast” came to have the same calendar importance for the Church as Rosh-ha-shanah for the synagogue’ (op. cit. p. 117). In A.G.'s chart on p. 48 the passages of John to which Bacon refers are spread over six months. Probably the Tishri-Nisan question would prove to have some relation, perhaps irrecoverable, to the merging of Tabernacles in Mark into Passover.

^{page 144 note 4} A.G. p. 230. That something more than a lectional treatment of the Old Testament is involved in the New Testament is indicated by such a work as B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic (which I have not yet had opportunity to study), but it is a subject to which the present topic would be a presupposition.

^{page 145 note 1} A.G. p. 231.

^{page 145 note 2} In Luke xi. 51-xviii. 14 is another example of Luke's work taking us a stage nearer the methods of the Fourth Gospel. The ‘travel narrative’ is not strictly a narrative but a collection of teaching strung on a tenuous thread which occasionally is recalled to be a journey. Its base seems to be ‘Deuteronomic’ (see Evans, C. F., ‘The Central Section of St Luke's Gospel’, in D. E. Nineham, Studies in the Gospels, pp. 37–53).Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 3} Even if the system cannot be shown to be without doubt a first-century one, the ma'amad custom of reading the Torah is earlier and for the festal calendar a lectionary is to be assumed without too much scope for choice, though there may have been more variation in the selection of haphtaroth.

^{page 146 note 1} Kilpatrick, G. D. has said, ‘John represents a stage in the invasion of Hellenistic paganism by Judaism and, later, by Christianity, and not an invasion of the Biblical religion by the pagan world’ (‘The Religious Background of the Fourth Gospel’, in F. L. Cross, Studies in the Fourth Gospel (London, 1957), p. 43)Google Scholar

^{page 146 note 2} The Fourth Gospel in the Early Church, pp. 36–41.

^{page 146 note 3} Ibid. pp. 85 f.

^{page 146 note 4} The Foundations of the Christian Faith (London, 1950), pp. 161 f.Google Scholar